Quote Originally Posted by Cleretic View Post
I actually think responding to the thread's question of 'with access to as many levers as you nee, what can you come up with to stop the Ancients from meeting their doom' with a well-reasoned 'no' that he's been making since the first page is very valid, actually. I also see your response on the first page, and even without any bias of preference Cilia's argument is a lot more compelling than yours, largely because they admit that problems run deeper. Do you really think that just confiscating the Meteia leads to a happily-ever-after? That no more leaks may spring? Hell, you don't think Hermes is just gonna try to make more? Therapy's not a snap fix even when it works, especially when you're treating the subject poorly through means like suddenly stamping out their personal project.
Yet none of this is backed up by citation or by definitive statements that are backed by the writers. As I have stated previously inside of the post you quoted neither side can 100% prove the question to be yes or no. It is far from my fault that there seems to be an inability to read the post and what my true position is, and that trying to state that one is "more" right or "less" wrong is not going to do anything in the long run provided no definitive statements. You, as well as everyone else in this thread, have to be beholden to whatever the writers allow for in the story, not what others believe because their headcanon says so.

It is foolish to continue to argue this with me, my position is based on what is available to the writers at this given moment were they to create or continue any threads involving the Ancients as they have never shut the door. Your biases are clear and are not being completely removed despite your aforementioned claim.

Quote Originally Posted by Cleretic View Post
And do us all a favor, and maybe respond on your real account; nobody thinks that the one whose only character is a level 80 Scholar who runs an FC of characters that haven't cracked 50 is your actual one.
Why does this matter? The truth of an argument does not change whether it is an accredited person in a specific field or a layman. It is common knowledge you do not need to be an expert in a particular field so long as you can back up a claim, which is something you have failed to do in this rebuttal. If you think of me as an alt, I would like to know who you think I am, I could use a good laugh.

Your post is meant to be a distraction from the argument I made, mainly because I believe you cannot prove me wrong. I have provided an example of what the strongest form of the argument you are trying to back would be and I proved it to be incorrect using citations from the writers of the game. If you want to play the game that you indicated on your first post, know the rules of the game so you don't end up in this sort of position, where you have to claw at logical nothings and non-sequiturs to try and prove yourself right. Prove to me what you think is right with absolutes, this being proper citations for all of your claims, and you may be able to change my position. Or are you unable to accomplish this simple task because it is all headcanon, thus not real lore and can be readily discarded when it comes to real arguments.