Quote:
| Lycos: Dai Grepher, if you're trying to convince me that you are right, stop. It will never work. I know what I know, and what I know is the truth from reliable sources. You are an idiot for not listening to, ignoring, or twisting the meaning of those sources |
Dai Grepher: What you think you know is actually wrong. I am right about this issue and the facts prove this. However, I am not trying to convince you. I am just trying to bring true information to the Metroid fans. If they deny the facts and wish to believe a delusion that is incorrect then it is their problem, not mine.
Quote:
| Lycos: this bunch of data sounds oddly like the info that Dai Grepher was pushing on us earlier in this topic. Apperently, someone didn't read the E-Manga. It clearly stated that Samus was raised on Zebes by the Chozo. |
Dai Grepher: What does the E-Manga have to do with anything? Anyway, I am sure that the "retcon" information was added to the article after I had already posted that information in other forums. Then after reading my evidence someone edited Wikipedia to explain it all as a "retcon". Now what you should realize is that whoever posted that information about "retconing" Metroid gave no sources as to how they knew it was a "retcon" and not the details of a new and different game. Therefore, the theory that Metroid was "retconed" is just a hypothesis with no evidence to support it. It is merely an excuse to get around the fact that Zero Mission cannot lead into Super Metroid. A most pitiful deception, really.
[quote][qb]Lycos: Another thing: it states that there is no remanant of the Chozodian Ruins in SM. when the space pirate mothership blew up, it destroyed most of the ruins and what was left was sealed off from any entry. That is a highly plausable theory to explain this absence.
Dai Grepher: Or the true and factual explanation that Chozodia and the Ruins were not thought up yet by the writers in 1991, and the in-game explanation that Super Metroid's structure just doesn't lead to those areas even though they could still exist there.
The point is, you are accepting this person's theory as a likely possibility when that person has no proof or evidence to support the claim. The fact that you accept a baseless theory that fits your ideal timeline while rejecting a fact that has proof to back it up because it doesn't fit your ideal timeline proves that you are biased. You ignore the facts because they prove you wrong, not because the facts or I are at fault.