Quote Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER View Post
That's fair enough and I do agree with you on this, there probably isn't any meaning on the text, but the argument was he doesn't base it on nothing - he looked up the text, found out what it meant, and saw that it could potentially fit the storyline.
But that text DOESN'T have a meaning. It's a random jumble of letters. At one point, it comes close to having a single word that's relevant, but it's not actually that word.

It may be wrong, but it's not based on nothing - I have a lot of Theories that have been proven wrong, but they where all based on something. It's just that I interpetted the "somethings" wrong.
And that's fine. It's continuing on after the 'something' is gone that makes it based on nothing.

And I do see a lot of solid evidence with FE's theories (again that doesn't mean they're correct, but I can see where he gets them from.)
I can see where they come from too, but that doesn't mean they are concrete. He 'gets' the time is divided into several distinct geographic regions idea from the color test in Esthar. He 'gets' that the party is propagators based on 'personality traits' of propagators that aren't there. He 'gets' that the propagators aren't dead based on a blink cycle that simply isn't there. He 'gets' that Ellone is a robot and Rinoa is the real Ellone based on... Nada. He continues to base ever more grandiose theories on unsupported and completely tenuous theories that are unsupported. He jumps from fanciful notion to fanciful notion, acting as if the fanciful notions are support instead of further things to be validated.
THAT is what basing theories on nothing is.

What staggers me though, is that you knew who I was talking about! :D
How could I not? I remember debating with him.