i wonder what ultemicia's real name

[Lychon]

I am not familiar with your past arguments, and there are certainly no specific examples in this thread. I am familiar with virtually all the scenes/information in FF8 which have been used as arguments in the R=U debate, and I can think of none which indicate that Rinoa will develop some sort of inherent ability to move through time at will. Not even Ultimecia could do that. She had to rely on the Junction Machine Ellone for her timetravelling. Supposing Rinoa could do more than Ultimecia is not plausible, as Ultimecia has Rinoas powers, and more than that too probably.
However, if you care to repeat your arguments here, I'd be happy to adress them.

You answered to my previous posts, how are you then not familiar with my arguments? Your are incorrect when you state that “Ultimecia has Rinoas powers.” If Rinoa becomes Ultimecia in the future, she will acquire powers which she did not have when she was Rinoa. Her inherent sorcery may develop into the much more powerful form of Ultimecia, so therefore it is incorrect to assume that Ultimecia has Rinoa’s powers. They may be the same person, but they are in different time periods with completely different characteristics.

Rinoa does not need to develop any latent ability for time travel. As you have already stated, she has Ellone, and therefore Rinoa may have transformed into Ultimecia in the future, and with Ellone’s help, attempted to compress time as to secure her power indefinitely.

You can look at my posts above, can’t you? I’ll be happy to let you know what numbers my previous posts were so you can see that I did mention specific examples in the game. The post numbers were #51 and #56. So by stating “there are certainly no specific examples in this thread,” you are either deliberately choosing to ignore my previous posts, or you simply did not care to read them.

True, 'definitude' is something no one can have seeing as the game stops when it does. Nonetheless, probability and plausibility are on my side. Your claim that Rinoa gains time-travelling capacities is as of yet vastly unfounded, and thus has as much plausibility as any figment of imagination that I can think of happening after the game (like say, Irvine getting a sex-change, becoming a sorceress, and becoming Ultimecia).

I never ‘claimed’ that Rinoa attained time traveling capabilities. Every reference I made to this statement was met with the conditional “if.” Let’s keep the history straight and clear. It is merely a possibility I was entertaining. But as you have so excellently pointed out, Rinoa never had to obtain any kind of time travel capability. If she did turn into Ultimecia in the future, she had Ellone to use as a tool to achieve her goal of time compression. The R=U argument has much more plausibility or ‘probability’ than ‘Irvine getting a sex-change.’ Both Rinoa and Ultimecia are sorceresses, and it may give you greater insight to this argument if you actually take a look at my previous arguments about why Ultimecia might attempt to kill Rinoa or want to achieve time compression.

It seems that only now, when I paint you into a corner that you admit to not having definiteness in your stance that Rinoa is not Ultimecia, while before you stated happily “So we can conclude that Rinoa is still not Ultimecia.” I see now that probability may be on your side, but plausibility is most definitely on my side. It is most definitely possible, and I believe not only possible, but also fantastically feasible.

Since discussing absolutes is pointless, we have to settle with discussing plausible absolutes, and the plausible absolute is that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Believing otherwise is (until you show otherwise) means leaving FF8 and entering fan-fiction.

Lol, wow, now you seem to completely engulf yourself in hypocrisy. “The plausible absolute?” Sounds like you’re making up arguments as you go along to contradict dialectical conclusions. The probability that Rinoa is Ultimecia is very low, but the plausibility that they are the same is very high. I’ve already given enough logical support for this scenario, and I’m not about to replay the game in the middle of college. This is not some random fan-fiction about Irvine getting a sex-change; this is a topic of continued discussion and to deny the possibility and plausibility of it is not simply leaving FFVIII, but leaving the realm of Final Fantasy overall. I’m surprised that such an unbending person such as yourself even dabbles in a game called ‘Final Fantasy.’ What argument do you want to take up next? Perhaps we can discuss which Final Fantasy was really the final one? Lol

-LYCHON

[Darth Cid]

Zidane: I say it's Bob.

[Sir Bahamut]

You answered to my previous posts, how are you then not familiar with my arguments?

Sorry, I thought you meant arguments in earlier threads, because if you were referring to arguments in this thread, I already explained that all your arguments boil down to the unfounded assumption that "Rinoa found some way to travel to the future" and became corrupted there.

Your are incorrect when you state that “Ultimecia has Rinoas powers.” If Rinoa becomes Ultimecia in the future, she will acquire powers which she did not have when she was Rinoa. Her inherent sorcery may develop into the much more powerful form of Ultimecia, so therefore it is incorrect to assume that Ultimecia has Rinoa’s powers. They may be the same person, but they are in different time periods with completely different characteristics.

Fair enough, but the point is moot.

Rinoa does not need to develop any latent ability for time travel. As you have already stated, she has Ellone, and therefore Rinoa may have transformed into Ultimecia in the future, and with Ellone’s help, attempted to compress time as to secure her power indefinitely.

Firstly, Ellone only sends peoples consciousness through time, not the actual person, and secondly, she can only send people to the past, not the future. So I'm afraid Rinoa would have to develop time-travelling abilities, which, needless to remind, is a baseless assumption.

You can look at my posts above, can’t you? I’ll be happy to let you know what numbers my previous posts were so you can see that I did mention specific examples in the game. The post numbers were #51 and #56. So by stating “there are certainly no specific examples in this thread,” you are either deliberately choosing to ignore my previous posts, or you simply did not care to read them.

Actually, I read over all your posts, but didn't find anything. I see now though, that you had indeed included one ingame event in your arguments, for which I apologise. That being said, one single example hardly constitutes use of the plural form. Furthermore, the argument in which the example is used is flawed, and it does not address the important issue at hand here. What you need to show is that the game backs up the assumption that Rinoa will be able to travel to the future after the game has ended, but in post 51, you simply say "If Rinoa ever did obtain the power for time manipulation, she might become corrupted and turn into Ultimecia (Ulcia) in the future" bringing us back to the fact that the assumption is completely baseless thus rendering your hypothetical scenario pointless. Now, to answer the actual argument in which the example is used:

Since she controls time, killing herself in the past may not have any effect on Ultimecia (if she is Rinoa) because she has stepped outside of the linear time effect. Actually, she would probably want to kill her past self as to safe guard any kind of threat to her current state and power. This explains why Ultimecia nearly caused the death of Rinoa on disk three.

Firstly, you say "she controls time" thus allowing her to step outside time itself, but in fact, the game shows that Ultimecia has no special control over time until she compresses it all (if Ultimecia had 'control over time', the dependance on the Junction Machine Ellone becomes ludicrous).

Secondly, you say she would kill her past self to avoid any "threat to her current state and power". What sort of threat? If Ultimecia could step outside of time itself, surely nothing Rinoa did could harm her?

Thirdly, it is sort of wrong to say that Ultimecia tried to kill Rinoa. She did not actively seek out Rinoa to have her killed, it was just that she was a ruthless sorceress, so in the two times she was in control of her fate, she simply left her to die. One does not need to use such intricate scenarios and arguments to explain why Rinoa nearly dies at Ultimecias hand.

But as said, this is really irrelevant, because the base assumption is what must be adressed.

Oh, and in post 56 you merely stated that "my past argument doesn't actually rest entirely on assumptions. I brought up specific examples in the Final Fantasy VIII canon of game play" presumably referring to post 51, but as mentioned, there was only the one example there. Again, sorry for missing that one, but can you really blame me when you indicated that you had made half a dozen or so in-game examples...

I never ‘claimed’ that Rinoa attained time traveling capabilities. Every reference I made to this statement was met with the conditional “if.” Let’s keep the history straight and clear. It is merely a possibility I was entertaining.

My bad. I simply assumed that was what the main argument was about, because if you don't assume something like Rinoa gaining timetravelling powers, Rinoa cannot be Ultimecia (because as stated, she would die of old age long before Ultimecias era).

But as you have so excellently pointed out, Rinoa never had to obtain any kind of time travel capability. If she did turn into Ultimecia in the future, she had Ellone to use as a tool to achieve her goal of time compression.

You seem to be forgetting the fact I pointed out just above: Ultimecia lives too far into the future for Rinoa to become Ultimecia by any natural means. Ellone is irrelevant here. You say "if she did turn into Ultimecia" but unless Rinoa somehow travelled to the future, this is not possible, as pointed out many times now.

The R=U argument has much more plausibility or ‘probability’ than ‘Irvine getting a sex-change.’ Both Rinoa and Ultimecia are sorceresses, and it may give you greater insight to this argument if you actually take a look at my previous arguments about why Ultimecia might attempt to kill Rinoa or want to achieve time compression.

True, the scenario I listed is less probable, but the point was that both my scenario and your scenario are based on the same premise; that something out of the ordinary happened after the game ended which is not backed up by the game. As such, they both count as implausible scenarios, even if my scenario was even less implausible than yours.

And I don't see what Ultimecias motives for compressing time or killing Rinoa have to do with anything. There's no point discussing the motives of a Rinoa turned Ultimecia unless you show that Rinoa does indeed become Ultimecia, because there already exist perfectly logical and plausible motives explaining Ultimecias actions without having to assume that Rinoa is Ultimecia.

It seems that only now, when I paint you into a corner that you admit to not having definiteness in your stance that Rinoa is not Ultimecia, while before you stated happily “So we can conclude that Rinoa is still not Ultimecia.” I see now that probability may be on your side, but plausibility is most definitely on my side. It is most definitely possible, and I believe not only possible, but also fantastically feasible.

Please don't flatter yourself. I stand by what I said; the only logical conclusion is that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Of course, entirely strictly speaking, anything could happen after the game has ended, which is what I naturally had to agree on when you brought it up, but if we are to simply allow any wild scenario to be entertained as possible, we end up with stuff like Irvine becoming a drag queen or whatever, which is clearly pointless. For all practical purposes, we must restrict ourselves to those scenarious backed up clearly by the game, and when doing so, the conclusion that Rinoa is not Ultimecia holds, unless you can show otherwise that is.

Lol, wow, now you seem to completely engulf yourself in hypocrisy. “The plausible absolute?” Sounds like you’re making up arguments as you go along to contradict dialectical conclusions. The probability that Rinoa is Ultimecia is very low, but the plausibility that they are the same is very high. I’ve already given enough logical support for this scenario, and I’m not about to replay the game in the middle of college. This is not some random fan-fiction about Irvine getting a sex-change; this is a topic of continued discussion and to deny the possibility and plausibility of it is not simply leaving FFVIII, but leaving the realm of Final Fantasy overall. I’m surprised that such an unbending person such as yourself even dabbles in a game called ‘Final Fantasy.’ What argument do you want to take up next? Perhaps we can discuss which Final Fantasy was really the final one? Lol

Being a college student one might hope you were above petty insults and baseless blows at my personality, but it looks like I was wrong in this case. Still, I'll address these last points.

Firstly, my apparent hypocrisy was discussed last point, but if you still think I am a raving hypocrite, you're going to have to be a bit more specific.

Secondly, 'plausibility' and 'probability' are basically interchangeable words (at least according to Dictionary.com), so it makes no sense to say that R=U is probable but not plausible (it is in fact neither). You have not given nearly enough logical backing to your claim (in fact, as pointed out, you have given none where it counts), and if you're too busy in college to try and validate your arguments, you probably shouldn't be arguing over the finer points of FF8 anyway.

Thirdly, and finally, Final Fantasy games leave things to be discussed, definitely, and the R=U has been discussed a lot, and it's been given a very fair chance (I adamantly supported it a few years ago, believe it or not), but claiming that I am running counter to Final Fantasy itself by drawing a logical conclusion about this theory is ridiculous. If you think it is for some reason impossible to dismiss any theories based on good evidence, then why are you even having this discussion?

To summarise this; until you can give a wellfounded, well backed up explanation for how Rinoa lived to see Ultimecias era, Rinoa cannot be Ultimecia, simply because she would die of old age.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you refrained from the petty insults if you're going to reply to this. Hopefully not to much to ask for.

[Darth Cid]

By the way, I would appreciate it if you refrained from the petty insults if you're going to reply to this. Hopefully not to much to ask for.

Zidane: I was trying to be funny, besides which R=U has been proven wrong so many times, it's not funny. It doesn't matter Ultimecia is not Ultimecia's birth name, but people are trying to bring an issue into this thread that has been denounced several times, especially by this forum's FAQ.

[Lychon]

Sorry, I thought you meant arguments in earlier threads, because if you were referring to arguments in this thread, I already explained that all your arguments boil down to the unfounded assumption that "Rinoa found some way to travel to the future" and became corrupted there.
Fair enough, but the point is moot.

Oh, you thought I meant arguments from earlier threads? What earlier threads? We’re conversing about the topic in this thread and I’ve made my conclusions apparent. I believe you are incorrect about stating that I ‘assume’ Rinoa found some way to time travel to the future. I have already stated that Rinoa did not need to find any kind of means to travel back in time or forward in time: she had Ellone all along and if she did become Ultimecia, she could have used Ellone to help her achieve time-compression. As you yourself stated, not even Ultimecia had the sole power to travel back in time by herself, so if Rinoa does acquire such powers she cannot possibly be Ultimecia.

And the point is by no means ‘moot,’ good sir. It is a very serious point with facts that I find quite convincing and plausible. And you sure seem to take my response to heart if you would counter with such a long-winded post. Nevertheless, let’s go through it. (Personally, I don’t see a reason why you continue to argue because even you already admitted that it is possible for Ultimecia to be Rinoa, and I’m not about to vary my agreement to that theory simply because you find it strange. )

Firstly, Ellone only sends peoples consciousness through time, not the actual person, and secondly, she can only send people to the past, not the future. So I'm afraid Rinoa would have to develop time-travelling abilities, which, needless to remind, is a baseless assumption.

If Rinoa did become Ultimecia, she could have used Ellone to send her consciousness backward in time in the exact same way that was shown in the game. Your logic here is completely unfounded and downright erroneous. Rinoa does not need to develop any time traveling capabilities because Ellone is still present in the past for her to junction. Therefore, it is very possible that Rinoa does become Ultimecia in the future and then projects her consciousness backwards in time through Ellone, using her to achieve her goal of time compression.

Actually, I read over all your posts, but didn't find anything. I see now though, that you had indeed included one ingame event in your arguments, for which I apologise. That being said, one single example hardly constitutes use of the plural form. Furthermore, the argument in which the example is used is flawed, and it does not address the important issue at hand here. What you need to show is that the game backs up the assumption that Rinoa will be able to travel to the future after the game has ended, but in post 51, you simply say "If Rinoa ever did obtain the power for time manipulation, she might become corrupted and turn into Ultimecia (Ulcia) in the future" bringing us back to the fact that the assumption is completely baseless thus rendering your hypothetical scenario pointless. Now, to answer the actual argument in which the example is used:

Actually, I included two examples directly from the game, but once again you have failed to notice what I have explicitly stated. In post 51, I referenced Ultimecia’s act of time compression and I referenced Rinoa being ejected into space. That’s one plus one so we have two. I believe that is plenty to warrant an expression of plurality, but it is definitely not a warrant for you to completely disregard the arguments and state “there are certainly no specific examples in this thread.” You claim you were referring to past threads, but you specifically remark that you saw no specific examples in this thread. So therefore (as I have stated before), you either ignored by arguments or did not even read them at all. It is kind of hard to hold a valid dialectical dialogue with someone if they do not address all of the points.

I also believe you degrade to sophistic logic here. I have already addressed my previous statement regarding “if Rinoa could travel back in time.” This was a conjectural postulation, and I have since stated that Rinoa would not need to obtain any kind of time-traveling capability to have become Ultimecia in the future. What you don’t seem to understand is that if Rinoa is Ultimecia, then in the future she has already become Ultimecia, and since Ultimecia already attempted time compression, she has inadvertently changed the past and future forever.

Secondly, even if the past was still on the same track to the future, regardless of Ultimecia’s actions, Rinoa would not need to travel to the future at all. If she is Ultimecia, she will inevitably become her in the course of time. But like I have stated above, Ultimecia may have forever altered the past and future when she attempted time compression, perhaps altered it enough to change Rinoa’s future of becoming Ultimecia at all. Perhaps in this future, Rinoa does not become Ultimecia, but it still does not by any means count out the argument that Rinoa was the same as the Ultimecia who attempted time compression. The situation is by no means pointless- but very possible and very plausible. Let’s continue forward and see if you have any other flaws in your dialectics:

Firstly, you say "she controls time" thus allowing her to step outside time itself, but in fact, the game shows that Ultimecia has no special control over time until she compresses it all (if Ultimecia had 'control over time', the dependance on the Junction Machine Ellone becomes ludicrous).

Ah ah ah, taking my words out of context is not very nice, lol . In effect, Ultimecia does control time because she initiates its compression. Through time compression, she has stepped outside of the linear time effect, therefore it would not matter if she killed her past self in the past (Rinoa). Once she compresses time, Ellone is no longer as pivotal or nearly as crucial in Ultimecia’s plans. You contradict yourself by implying above that Ultimecia has no control over time, and then stating that she does have some control over time after she achieves time compression. My original text was in the context of Ultimecia’s time compression and you seem to have torn apart my argument in favor of supporting some false assumption. My statement of “she controls time” was immediately preceded by the conditional explanation that Ultimecia would have such control if and when she managed to compress time.

Therefore, we can assume that your counterargument is fractured, and my original plausibility holds.

Secondly, you say she would kill her past self to avoid any "threat to her current state and power". What sort of threat? If Ultimecia could step outside of time itself, surely nothing Rinoa did could harm her?

Ultimecia has not yet achieved time compression when she almost destroys Rinoa, but she may have already stepped outside of the linear time consequence. Therefore, she may still have something to fear from her ‘past’ self, who is Rinoa. If Rinoa really is Ultimecia in the past, then Rinoa may be the greatest threat to Ultimecia’s state of power in the future because she may somehow prevent herself from becoming Ultimecia. And even though Ultimecia may have stepped outside of the linear time consequence, she may still feel threatened by Rinoa’s existence in a particular time in the past.

Lastly, no one is even sure that Ultimecia wanted to kill Rinoa in the third disk. This is merely one possibility, and it may turn out that Ultimecia had no intention of harming or killing Rinoa, but rather had a different goal in mind.

Thirdly, it is sort of wrong to say that Ultimecia tried to kill Rinoa. She did not actively seek out Rinoa to have her killed, it was just that she was a ruthless sorceress, so in the two times she was in control of her fate, she simply left her to die. One does not need to use such intricate scenarios and arguments to explain why Rinoa nearly dies at Ultimecias hand.

But as said, this is really irrelevant, because the base assumption is what must be adressed.

I just addressed this in the text above. I never stated with definitude that Ultimecia wanted to kill Rinoa. It was an assumption, and perhaps it was true, or perhaps it wasn’t. In any case, you are right about one thing: it is irrelevant because it does not change the possibility that Rinoa could have become Ultimecia in the future, gained dominance of the world, and then projected herself backwards in time through Ellone so that she could achieve time compression.

Oh, and in post 56 you merely stated that "my past argument doesn't actually rest entirely on assumptions. I brought up specific examples in the Final Fantasy VIII canon of game play" presumably referring to post 51, but as mentioned, there was only the one example there. Again, sorry for missing that one, but can you really blame me when you indicated that you had made half a dozen or so in-game examples...

When did I say that I made “half a dozen or so in-game examples…”? Please avoid making up things and pretending that I said them because it really weakens your entire position in this argument, which is already teetering over the edge.

As I have addressed above, I had two specific in-game references in post #51, which you just seemed to breeze by until I specifically referenced them in a secondary post. The two specific examples were Ultimecia’s act of time compression and Rinoa being ejected into space. So you actually did not just miss one, but you missed two (plural!) arguments.

Also, in post #56, I reference yet another fact of the game: Rinoa’s inherent sorcery. This further adds to the plausibility that Rinoa can/will eventually turn into Ultimecia in the future. It doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly does contradict the concrete stance that proudly defies acknowledging the possibility that Rinoa can become Ultimecia.

My bad. I simply assumed that was what the main argument was about, because if you don't assume something like Rinoa gaining timetravelling powers, Rinoa cannot be Ultimecia (because as stated, she would die of old age long before Ultimecias era).

I’ve already addressed this. We do not know the facts of Rinoa’s future, so you do not know exactly what occurs. Once you introduce an element of time manipulation into any given scenario, any concept of death through old age becomes seriously altered and has to be reconsidered.

Scenario: The sorceresses in Rinoa’s time and in Rinoa’s future suffer intense persecution following the failed attempt of Time Compression. They want to prevent any sorceress from possibly becoming the feared Ultimecia, or someone of the like, so they unfairly target any and all sorceress for extermination. This may lead some sorceresses to go into hiding and eventually they may harden their hearts enough against the world for persecuting them, causing them to hate the world and wishing to destroy it. This is a popular scenario which has been discussed as a possibility of why Ultimecia wants to destroy normal time.

Furthermore, another theory, which I myself have developed, is that Rinoa becomes persecuted and is locked away in stasis, just like Adel. After generations in stasis, perhaps someone frees Rinoa (maybe a psychological remnant manifestation of Squall (aka Griever) because he swore to be Rinoa's knight, and will do anything to be with her and have her be free. This also explains the last scenes of the game when the SeeD team is fighting against Ultimecia and Griever. Squall and Rinoa may in effect be fighting against their future selves!!).

Therefore, as you can see, there is evidence in the game to draw a conclusion of possibility and plausibility that Rinoa can become/is Ultimecia. If she is placed in stasis and captured, just like Adel was, and then later released, just like Adel was, the argument of "normal life spans" gets thrown COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW. Rinoa therefore IS Ultimecia- scorned through persecution and her lover long dead, the sorceress now attempts to destroy her bitter world and all the hate in it by compressing time and junctioning individuals through Ellone. Eventually, she loses any trace of her past self, and completely loses herself to her new identity: ULTIMECIA.

Also, remember that Esthar already attempted to place Rinoa in a sorceress prison, but Squall would not allow it. So I am not pulling this 'out of thin air.' This is what happens because this is Final Fantasy, and that is the explanation of the entire game. The cycle of sorceress persecution causes Rinoa to become Ultimecia, and then everything is explained. Damn I'm good! lol

You seem to be forgetting the fact I pointed out just above: Ultimecia lives too far into the future for Rinoa to become Ultimecia by any natural means. Ellone is irrelevant here. You say "if she did turn into Ultimecia" but unless Rinoa somehow travelled to the future, this is not possible, as pointed out many times now.

Once again, we do not know the circumstances of Rinoa’s future. Another one of my theories, this one however a bit less supported in the game as the one I have placed in bold above: Rinoa may become Ultimecia and then somehow project her essence to successive generations in the future, waiting until she is powerful enough or until the circumstances are right for her to achieve time compression. Therefore, her body may wither and die, but it will still be the same person. She may not be able to control time, but she may be able to continuously project herself to future sorceresses, and we have already seen the plethora of possibility when it comes to projection and time in FFVIII.

Given the fact that Ellone is never fully explained in the game, and that the entire game revolved around an insanely complex time-loop, you are being extremely close-minded when it comes to the plausibility and possibility of Ultimecia being Rinoa.

Taking the above into consideration, we see that just because sorceresses’ have normal life spans, does not by any means disqualify Rinoa from becoming Ultimecia. Here is a popular plot analysis done by ‘falsehead,’ aka Sophie Ceshire:

There are many odd aspects to Rinoa. We are told Sorceresses get their potential powers at age five (then it seems they have to inherit full powers from a dying Sorceress). Julia, her mother dies in a car crash when Rinoa is five. In the time-loop universe, this is also the year that Ultimecia arrives back in the past. Rinoa speaks openly of passing her powers on and what will happen. Perhaps in our first universe, a place where Rinoa never met Squall as SeeD did not exist, Rinoa is much more embittered by the loss of her mother and poor relationship with her father. (She may even have lost both parents in this
Universe and ended up at the Orphanage, explaining why Ultimecia appears there in the past as when travelling through time, all are told to concentrate on one places, a special place. Also though remember Rinoa and Squall make the Orphanage the place they will meet each other if they ever get lost, so she could have that attachment to the place as well).

True, the scenario I listed is less probable, but the point was that both my scenario and your scenario are based on the same premise; that something out of the ordinary happened after the game ended which is not backed up by the game. As such, they both count as implausible scenarios, even if my scenario was even less implausible than yours.

I’ve already backed up the scenario I am purporting with enough logical possibility, plausibility, probability, and any other ‘p’ word you wish, lol . The game offers hints in the plot and dialogue which can be taken as ‘backing’ up the scenario of Ultimecia being Rinoa, and if you choose to ignore them then that’s up to you. This is Final Fantasy, not Final Reality. But even in reality, the logical conclusions that I have made hold up to the realm of possibility in any dimension, real or imagined. I never argued that I had proof of what I was purporting; I only argued that my stance was a possibility, and as far as I am concerned, a plausibility. You have already admitted that it is a possibility so I do not even comprehend why you are arguing with me, lol .

And I don't see what Ultimecias motives for compressing time or killing Rinoa have to do with anything. There's no point discussing the motives of a Rinoa turned Ultimecia unless you show that Rinoa does indeed become Ultimecia, because there already exist perfectly logical and plausible motives explaining Ultimecias actions without having to assume that Rinoa is Ultimecia.

“Perfectly logical and plausible motives explaining Ultmecias actions”? What game have you been playing? To state such a thing about one of the most convoluted, indefinite game plots in existence is to partake of a false belief which has no explicit canonical support. I am trying to explore all the options of how Ultimecia can be Rinoa, and how the game’s plot supports this scenario. Therefore, it is most relevant to explore Ultimecia’s motives because if these motives were somehow related to Rinoa’s lifetime (from which we have definite facts) then we can further support for the idea that Ultimecia really is Rinoa. Here, once again, is “falsehead,” aka Sophie Ceshire, with a common plot analysis regarding why Rinoa may become the embittered and power-hungry Ultimecia:

Perhaps she came to the attention of the Esthar Soldiers searching for an heir
for Adel to pass her powers onto, with Ellone left to be experimented on for
her time control powers that Doc Odine is interested in. In this universe,
events may unfold so that Rinoa ends up inheriting powers from Adel and
possibly becomes a nasty piece of work. Possibly then the resistance to Adel
manages to carry over and capture and seal Rinoa instead.

After many, many years. Possibly thousands, something happens to release Rinoa,
who is probably by now, pretty narked off and possibly insane. She calls
herself Ultimecia and in a spectacular act of revenge she decides to wipeout
all living things that ever existed. Using the now perfected "Junction Machine
Ellone" she reaches back into the past and uses the young Ellone to allow her
to compress time. Now the universe splits. In universe 1, Time Compression is
achieved, but something goes wrong and Time Decompresses violently and possibly
remembering her mother, remerges back in the past at an Orphanage IN UNIVERSE
2. a new Universe in which the events of Universe 1 haven't taken place yet.
There the Sorceress in potentia (Edea), receives her powers and Rinoa/Ultimecia
is gone. She can't go back in time in Universe 1 as this would negate the
events that brought her there!

Since I have already explained how Rinoa bypasses the clause of a normal life-span, I will not repeat it here.

Please don't flatter yourself. I stand by what I said; the only logical conclusion is that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Of course, entirely strictly speaking, anything could happen after the game has ended, which is what I naturally had to agree on when you brought it up, but if we are to simply allow any wild scenario to be entertained as possible, we end up with stuff like Irvine becoming a drag queen or whatever, which is clearly pointless. For all practical purposes, we must restrict ourselves to those scenarious backed up clearly by the game, and when doing so, the conclusion that Rinoa is not Ultimecia holds, unless you can show otherwise that is.

Relax, no one is flattering anyone here, but I appreciate the comment nevertheless. The only logical conclusion is that Rinoa can be Ultimecia, and that many believe she is Ultimecia, myself included. You just stated that Rinoa is not Ultimecia and then you go on to say “anything could happen after the game has ended.” Perhaps a little flexibility will heighten your enjoyment of this game, as well as any of the Final Fantasy games.

Why do you keep bringing up the notion of Irvine becoming a drag-queen or having a sex change? If you have any evidence to back this up from the game then I would like to see it. There is neither logical support nor any factual support for such a conclusion, but there is both logical and factual support for Ultimecia being Rinoa. I have already gone through the arguments for this supposition above. If you choose to ignore the facts, then that is your decision. I have already shown that the definite conclusion that Rinoa is Ultimecia does not hold, and we should not ‘restrict’ ourselves to any particular group of notions, especially in a game such as Final Fantasy VIII which leaves so many questions unanswered in its ending.

Being a college student one might hope you were above petty insults and baseless blows at my personality, but it looks like I was wrong in this case. Still, I'll address these last points.

Firstly, my apparent hypocrisy was discussed last point, but if you still think I am a raving hypocrite, you're going to have to be a bit more specific.

Lol, petty insults? Pray tell, exactly what are you referring to? It seems that the only petty insults right now seem to be coming from you. You attack my character by stating that you hoped I was “above petty insults and baseless blows.” By stating this, you imply that I am below such ‘petty insults and baseless blows.’ I find the entire concept rather difficult to comprehend since the only thing I even directly wrote in regards to your character was that you were ‘unbending.’ How does this qualify as “petty insults and baseless blows?” I’ll hope that in the future we can avoid such libel so that we can actually have more time in arguing the matter at hand. In fact, I will stick by my original comment. I do believe you to be unbending because for an individual who is playing a game called Final Fantasy, and above that, playing one of the most speculative and open-ended games in the series, it is illogical to harbor such irresoluteness in your position that Ultimecia is not Rinoa.

You dabble in hypocrisy by stating that “discussing absolutes is pointless,” and then claiming support for a “plausible absolute.” Furthermore, you state in post #58 the following:

True, 'definitude' is something no one can have seeing as the game stops when it does

Following this, you continue to speak with certainty that Ultimecia is not Rinoa, even in the face of logical and in-game evidence. By doing this, good sir, you ‘dabble in hypocrisy,” at least in my eyes. On the other hand, I have never stated that Ultimecia is definitely Rinoa, nor have I stated that Ultimecia is definitely not Rinoa. I merely set out to prove the possibility and plausibility of such a thing.

Secondly, 'plausibility' and 'probability' are basically interchangeable words (at least according to Dictionary.com), so it makes no sense to say that R=U is probable but not plausible (it is in fact neither). You have not given nearly enough logical backing to your claim (in fact, as pointed out, you have given none where it counts), and if you're too busy in college to try and validate your arguments, you probably shouldn't be arguing over the finer points of FF8 anyway.

Too busy in college? Well now, how would you possibly know whether or not I am too busy in college? I am actually in Spring Break right now, so I can argue with you until the cows come home. Besides, as I have already stated previously, a close-minded and inflexible individual probably should not be arguing the complexities of FFVIII’s plot, much less be telling someone else not to argue them.

Now, let’s address your claim that probability and plausibility are interchangeable. Plausibility means that something appears to be valid or acceptable, while probability means refers to the likelihood of an occurrence. Therefore, although both words may at certain times be interchangeable, they are most definitely not interchangeable in this argument. It is improbable that Rinoa is Ultimecia, but based on the logical and in-game evidence, it is definitely plausible that such an event is valid and true. You have already admitted to bypassing my previous logical and in-game evidence in post # 51, so I find it of no surprise that you are once again doing this now.

Thirdly, and finally, Final Fantasy games leave things to be discussed, definitely, and the R=U has been discussed a lot, and it's been given a very fair chance (I adamantly supported it a few years ago, believe it or not), but claiming that I am running counter to Final Fantasy itself by drawing a logical conclusion about this theory is ridiculous. If you think it is for some reason impossible to dismiss any theories based on good evidence, then why are you even having this discussion?

It is you who chose to continue this argument, not I. I never stated that with absoluteness that Rinoa was Ultimecia. You on the other hand did state with a ‘plausible absolute’ that you believed Rinoa is not Ultimecia, despite the fact that you previously admitted that no side could claim ‘definitude.’ With all the above logical evidence, in combination with the in-game evidence in previous posts, there is no way I can see which will lead anyone to a conclusion of “plausible absoluteness” that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

To summarise this; until you can give a wellfounded, well backed up explanation for how Rinoa lived to see Ultimecias era, Rinoa cannot be Ultimecia, simply because she would die of old age.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you refrained from the petty insults if you're going to reply to this. Hopefully not to much to ask for.

I have already addressed the issue of Rinoa dying of old age. Such an argument can be easily dismissed based on what I stated above. I will also repeat, once again, that when the issue of time manipulation is brought into existence, everything is subject to revolution and alteration. Since FFVIII’s plot revolves around one giant time loop and time compression, the plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia becomes very real and very plausible, especially when it is combined with in-game hints and references to the subject.

Lastly, please refrain from falsely accusing me of ‘petty insults.’ I do not appreciate such libel, and if you consider being called “unbending” as a petty insult, then this isn’t going to be a very fun argument. I look forward to your response so we can continue this conversation.

-LYCHON

P.S. R=U lives!

[Sir Bahamut]

Ok, a lot of stuff in your last post here is either irrelevant to the discussion or all come under the same point, so I won't specifically answer quote by quote this time. This is not because I do not feel capable of answering all your arguments and statements because you've "painted me into a corner" (this could probably go on indefinitely if I answered every statement), but because a lot of stuff is simply irrelevant, and bringing us away from the real point here. I hope you understand, and if there's anything you really WANT me to answer specifically, please do let me know. Now, to answer the relevant stuff.

1)

You are correct, and I have agreed, that there is no absolute, 100% definite knowledge of what will happen after the game has ended. How then can I claim that with the certainty I do that Rinoa is not Ultimecia? Surely, since we don't know for sure, anything could have happened, including Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. You regard this as hypocrisy on my part, which I assume is either because you didn't care to read my last post carefully (a crime I willingly admit to doing, and which I have apologised for) or because I did not explain it well enough in my last post (definitely a possibility), but the reason I can say that is quite obvious really; working under the assumption that anything is possible renders arguments like these pointless.

It's the same reason we don't entertain the possibility that gravity is caused by pink, magic elephants, or that the universe is carried up by a giant tortoise; it leads to a logical quagmire. If we are to have no inhibitions, no standards upon which various scenerios are to be judged, no method to discard hopeless theories, no progress would be made.

This applies even more so for FF8, because unlike the universe, we know for a fact that FF8 was a story written for a purpose by authors who had something definite in mind. That is the reason I kept repeating Irvine getting a sex-change; it's an example of the sort of scenarios you render 'possible and plausible' if you embrace the idea that "anything could happen" and "who are we to know?" The R=U theory is simply another example of this. True, it is possible to make up arguments and 'hints' supporting the theory, but none are very good (I'll get back to that), but when push comes to shove, the whole theory is only 'possible' if you decide to fill in the blanks of FF8's future with pure fiction (ie. fan-fiction). There is nothing backing up the scenario that Rinoa is frozen down in the Sorceress Memorial (in fact, the game flatly goes against that when Squall rescues Rinoa from it in the game); there is nothing backing up Rinoa somehow travelling to the future; there is nothing backing up any other possible scenario you can imagine allowing Rinoa to live to become Ultimecia. These are all scenarios with a foundation based on a figment of your imagination, not something told in the game.

Your arguments, and in game examples did nothing to back up this figment of your imagination. They simply attempted to build upon a foundation with no support. That's all well and good, but if the fiundation is flawed, the scenario itself is flawed.

What I am saying is that a theory for any FF game which is to be considered valid and possible and plausible must be firmly rested on what we are told in the game. The R=U theory is firmly rested alright, but not on what the game tells us. That is why I say it with such certainty; if it is not based on the game itself the theory is merely fan-fiction, and not a valid theory. You see, the R=U theory would have been possible and quite plausible IF there had been a natural way for Rinoa to reach Ultimecias era, ie. a way which requires no additional assumptions. If Rinoa had extended lifespan, that would be perfect; with no extra assumptions we can say that Rinoa could live to become Ultimecia. But the Ultimania Guide curshed the hope of such a natural explanation for good, and thus effectively crushed all hopes for the R=U theory to be a valid, plausible theory. Do you disagree? Then please, come up with just a single in-game example which indicates that Rinoa will freeze herself down into the Sorceress Memorial after the game. But until then, it has as much backing as any fan-fiction, and my certaintly will thus remain; Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

You call it hypocrisy, but in reality, it is 'hypocrisy' that is absolutely fundamental to any logical argument, and is one any serious argument should automatically assume. If not, as pointed out, we might as well also discuss Irvine being Ultimecia, and in that case, the argument is pointless. If all you want with this argument is to show how there is always a possible scenario which leads to R=U, then why argue? It's taken for granted that one can conceviably think of a way for Rinoa to become Ultimecia, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the game supports it. In this case, the game does not support it, hence it is not valid.

You are of course free to believe the theory if you want (I won't stop you), but once you claim that there is logical evidence and hints backing it up, then you have to expect an argument based on such a premise. And as I am hopefully showing, R=U fails under such a premise.

2)

You refer to the R=U theory being backed up by hints and such in the game (despite not actually referring to a single example), but I disagree. I am perfectly familiar with all hints used to support the R=U theory (I'd even dare to say I came up with a few orginal ones myself), and after years of arguments, none have stood the test of careful scrutiny. To save you the trouble of having to write up all the examples you can think of though, I'll rather tell you to read the "Time/Ultimecia Plot FAQ" found here:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/game/197343.html

The R=U section goes through everything relevant to the theory, including all the so-called hints and evidence. If you read through all the counterarguments carefully, and still find reason to believe R=U (besides blind belief due to it being a conceivable scenario), please do explain why here.

3)

Falseheads Plot Analysis is down right bad, flawed and sometimes simply wrong when it comes to the discussion of Time, time compression and R=U.

To give an example from one passage you quoted, falsehead states that "There are many odd aspects to Rinoa. We are told Sorceresses get their potential powers at age five (then it seems they have to inherit full powers from a dying Sorceress)". In fact though, this supposed fact is quite false. What the game says is that one sorceress (Edea) gained powers from a dying sorceress at age 5. Falsehead, clearly not familiar enough with the facts of the game, confuses this with meaning that all sorceress gain potential powers at age 5 and that powers must be received from a dying sorceress, despite the fact that Edea is by no means dying when she gives Rinoa her powers.

I could cite more examples if you want, but I think you get the idea. Her analysis on multiple dimensions using quantum dynamics is overly complex and rather vain really (unless she has a Ph.D in theoretical physics, she probably shouldn't be talking about what is and is not possible through quantum dynamics, especially since most real scientists actually think timetravelling to the past is impossible). There are infinitely simpler ways to explain the timeloop in the game, ones which don't require shallow use of modern scientific concepts.

Perhaps in this future, Rinoa does not become Ultimecia, but it still does not by any means count out the argument that Rinoa was the same as the Ultimecia who attempted time compression.

I am presuming this is inspired by falseheads Plot Analysis (similarities are at least present)? As explained though, that Plot Analysis is simply not good when it comes to time and R=U. The only reason it has remained unchanged for so long is because she told me she simply "didn't have time to update it" (after I sent her a mail pointing out all the flaws).

Although this is also not particularly important, I thought I should let you know that using falseheads Plot Analysis as a basis for your arguments probably won't be a good idea.

4)

Given the fact that Ellone is never fully explained in the game, and that the entire game revolved around an insanely complex time-loop, you are being extremely close-minded when it comes to the plausibility and possibility of Ultimecia being Rinoa.

Just fealt like pointing out that the timeloop isn't nearly as insanely complex as you make it out to be. It is perfectly possible to explain it satisfactorily (although the circular logic it creates is hard to comprehend, it doesn't mean the loop in itself is beyond comprehension). You call me close-minded, but I feel inclined to suggest that it is you who are close-minded for not thinking we are capable of understanding it.

For the take on time, and the timeloop, I'll refer back to the previously linked FAQ.

---

Hopefully I got with myself the most important bits, and explained myself well enough. If you think I missed out something crucial, please let me know. The main point is in point 1 though, so deal with that if anything.

[Lychon]

Ok, a lot of stuff in your last post here is either irrelevant to the discussion or all come under the same point, so I won't specifically answer quote by quote this time. This is not because I do not feel capable of answering all your arguments and statements because you've "painted me into a corner" (this could probably go on indefinitely if I answered every statement), but because a lot of stuff is simply irrelevant, and bringing us away from the real point here. I hope you understand, and if there's anything you really WANT me to answer specifically, please do let me know. Now, to answer the relevant stuff.

Like I stated previously, it is really difficult to carry on an intelligent and logical argument if you ignore the points of the person you are arguing with. Nothing I wrote previously was irrelevant, and by carrying on this argument with you, I have actually become even more convinced that Ultimecia is Rinoa. Actually, I am more sure that this is a fact than I have been sure of many other things.

I would have appreciated if you answered quote by quote, but I see that you choose to concede parts of this argument. I have already logically proven that Rinoa can be Ultimecia and that it is not at all unlikely for her to be Ultimecia. Not only have I defended this point logically, but I have cited examples from the game which are considered canonical that further support the theory.

1)

You are correct, and I have agreed, that there is no absolute, 100% definite knowledge of what will happen after the game has ended. How then can I claim that with the certainty I do that Rinoa is not Ultimecia? Surely, since we don't know for sure, anything could have happened, including Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. You regard this as hypocrisy on my part, which I assume is either because you didn't care to read my last post carefully (a crime I willingly admit to doing, and which I have apologised for) or because I did not explain it well enough in my last post (definitely a possibility), but the reason I can say that is quite obvious really; working under the assumption that anything is possible renders arguments like these pointless.

You have already claimed that you believe that Rinoa is not Ultimecia by stating that you have faith in a “plausible absolute.” This is not simply a point of not knowing for sure- this is a point of plausibility and logical probability. If you had read my entire post previously, you would have payed greater attention to the part in bold which specifically makes for an argument of the plausibility and even the probability for Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. Remember how I stated before that probability is on your side? I have changed my mind on this- both probability and plausibility are on my side, and therefore if any “plausible absolute” is to be made, it is to be in support of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

We are not arguing about any random fact here (such as Irvine having a sex change, which you so ‘tastelessly’ brought up, lol). We are arguing about a theory which has definite logical support and even in-game support. People in real life argue about the existence or non-existence of God, but neither side has significant proof to completely change the balance. Hence, it is not simply an argument about possibility; it is an argument of probability and plausibility, and as I have proved in my previous post and as I have stated above, both are in support of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

It's the same reason we don't entertain the possibility that gravity is caused by pink, magic elephants, or that the universe is carried up by a giant tortoise; it leads to a logical quagmire. If we are to have no inhibitions, no standards upon which various scenerios are to be judged, no method to discard hopeless theories, no progress would be made.

You are arguing a sophism. Like I stated above, Rinoa being Ultimecia is not an argument pulled out of thin air. The arguments you listed above about tortoises and elephants are just that: arguments pulled out of thin air. Therefore, you are incorrect to classify the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory into the same group of imaginary figments. There is both logical and solid evidence to support such a conclusion, and if you choose to ignore it, then that is up to you.

This applies even more so for FF8, because unlike the universe, we know for a fact that FF8 was a story written for a purpose by authors who had something definite in mind. That is the reason I kept repeating Irvine getting a sex-change; it's an example of the sort of scenarios you render 'possible and plausible' if you embrace the idea that "anything could happen" and "who are we to know?" The R=U theory is simply another example of this. True, it is possible to make up arguments and 'hints' supporting the theory, but none are very good (I'll get back to that), but when push comes to shove, the whole theory is only 'possible' if you decide to fill in the blanks of FF8's future with pure fiction (ie. fan-fiction). There is nothing backing up the scenario that Rinoa is frozen down in the Sorceress Memorial (in fact, the game flatly goes against that when Squall rescues Rinoa from it in the game); there is nothing backing up Rinoa somehow travelling to the future; there is nothing backing up any other possible scenario you can imagine allowing Rinoa to live to become Ultimecia. These are all scenarios with a foundation based on a figment of your imagination, not something told in the game.

It is in the realm of FFVIII that arguments of plausibility and probability have even greater weight than in our universe. So it is not as you have stated; it is actually the exact opposite. Perhaps the authors of the game did have something definite as an ending, or perhaps they didn’t. By making the assumption that the authors definitely do not support Rinoa=Ultimecia is a baseless and unfounded assumption. It is far more likely that the authors of the game purposely left so many questions unanswered, and have purposely continued to leave these questions unanswered because they in fact meant Rinoa to be Ultimecia all along. We have no idea of knowing exactly what the authors thought, so it is foolish to even bring them up as a point of defense for your argument.

All we have to go on is what is given in the game and what can be logically concluded. As I have already proven, it is both probable and plausible that Rinoa does become Ultimecia. This has nothing to do with your concept of “anything is possible” or “anything is plausible.” Myself and other supporters of this theory are basing our argument from fact and logic. If you have worthy facts and logic that support Irvine getting a sex-change, then I would like to hear them.

‘When push comes to shove,’ it is not only possible, but it is both probable and plausible that Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. It has nothing to do with a ‘figment of my imagination.’ My imagination does not interfere with fact and logic, but I believe your imagination does. So unbending and inflexible have you proven to be in regards to Final Fantasy, that I am once again in awe that you actually received any enjoyment from the game. I have already addressed in my previous post that it is plausible for the persecution of sorceresses because of Ultimecia to affect Rinoa, and have her be locked in stasis in the Sorceress Memorial.

What’s more, the fact that Ultimecia achieved time compression signifies that she changed the past: she reached from the future and she altered all time, including Rinoa and Squall’s time. Perhaps she really was Rinoa, but now since she has altered the past, Rinoa may not become her, and that is why the game has a happy ending. The logic behind this makes sense, and it is by no means ‘pulled from thin air.’

Your arguments, and in game examples did nothing to back up this figment of your imagination. They simply attempted to build upon a foundation with no support. That's all well and good, but if the fiundation is flawed, the scenario itself is flawed.

That’s funny how you keep calling it a ‘figment of my imagination.’ Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is something that far escapes my imagination. The entire R=U theory is much closer to solid fact than an arbitrary piece of fan-fiction gone wild. If you find this difficult to comprehend because of your unending inflexibility, then I cannot help you, but this does not change the logic and evidence behind the theory. The scenario already has plenty of support, as I have demonstrated, and its logical justification is strong as steel..

By italicizing the ‘s’ on ‘examples,’ you seem to imply some sort of veiled insult. I’ve already shown you that I have much more than 1 example, so I do not understand why you consider this charade of how many examples I posted or how many examples I did not post. This links again to such an unbending character- no wonder you consider certain facts and logic which you do not agree with as being ‘figments of imagination.’

What I am saying is that a theory for any FF game which is to be considered valid and possible and plausible must be firmly rested on what we are told in the game. The R=U theory is firmly rested alright, but not on what the game tells us. That is why I say it with such certainty; if it is not based on the game itself the theory is merely fan-fiction, and not a valid theory. You see, the R=U theory would have been possible and quite plausible IF there had been a natural way for Rinoa to reach Ultimecias era, ie. a way which requires no additional assumptions. If Rinoa had extended lifespan, that would be perfect; with no extra assumptions we can say that Rinoa could live to become Ultimecia. But the Ultimania Guide curshed the hope of such a natural explanation for good, and thus effectively crushed all hopes for the R=U theory to be a valid, plausible theory. Do you disagree? Then please, come up with just a single in-game example which indicates that Rinoa will freeze herself down into the Sorceress Memorial after the game. But until then, it has as much backing as any fan-fiction, and my certaintly will thus remain; Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

A theory is just that: a theory. Myself and others included have offered much evidence and logical support for a conclusion of Rinoa being Ultimecia. The R=U theory does not have to be firmly rested on what the game tells us: the game is purposely left with many questions open, and the answers which are most likely are those which have the greatest logical support for probability and plausibility. I have already shown you that the R=U theory has copious amounts of both. Rinoa can reach Ultimecia’s era is several different ways, so there is certainly at least one way for her to reach the same time period. ‘You see,’ I’ve already addressed the issue of an extended life-span, and I do not see why you keep bringing this up at all. It is completely irrelevant in this regard because Rinoa does not reach Ultimecia through an extended life span: she has other plausible ways of reaching Ultimecia which would justify the R=U theory. I have already offered a plausible scenario for why Rinoa may be frozen in the Sorceress Memorial and put into stasis. The panic and fear people receive from Ultimecia’s attempt at time compression causes them to commit such an act, setting in motion the very events which will bring about the being of Ultimecia. You have no defense for this argument, and you simply bypass it by asking me to provide an in-game reference. There is no in-game reference! This hasn’t even happened yet, but the questions left open by the FFVIII ending collectively support Rinoa being Ultimecia through logic and specific in-game evidence which has already happened. Therefore, while you’re busy ignoring fact and logic in support of your imaginative idea of what FFVIII is about, I will maintain the strong theory that Rinoa is Ultimecia.

Lastly, like I have stated above, fact that Ultimecia achieved time compression has forever altered the past. So Rinoa may in fact not become anything else in her life time but just stay who she is: Rinoa. This is a solid explanation of why the ending of Final Fantasy VIII was a happy ending. The cycle of events in Rinoa’s time period were altered by Ultimecia compressing time: if Ultimecia had not altered the past, then Rinoa’s time period would have maintained the cycle of events which eventually would have brought in the existence of Ultimecia. But since Ultimecia has forever altered time, including past time and Rinoa’s time, she may never come about at all.

You call it hypocrisy, but in reality, it is 'hypocrisy' that is absolutely fundamental to any logical argument, and is one any serious argument should automatically assume. If not, as pointed out, we might as well also discuss Irvine being Ultimecia, and in that case, the argument is pointless. If all you want with this argument is to show how there is always a possible scenario which leads to R=U, then why argue? It's taken for granted that one can conceviably think of a way for Rinoa to become Ultimecia, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the game supports it. In this case, the game does not support it, hence it is not valid.

Hypocrisy is fundamental to any logical argument? This is completely erroneous. By the way you conduct dialectics, I can see why you would believe such a false notion. You keep bringing up the circumstance of Irvine turning into someone else…I have repeatedly asked you to cite support for this, as I have cited both logical and in-game support for Rinoa being Ultimecia. What you are doing is conducting a sophistic argument. You do not realize it, but you are setting up really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. after really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. for me to knock down with the solidity of logic and sound theory.

I was ready to admit to a compromise that none of us can claim definitude in our statements, so don’t accuse me of continuing the argument. You again dabble in hypocrisy here by implying that you would have ended the argument if we agreed to the possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and you perjure yourself because such an agreement was reached, but you chose to continue this argument until it became something you could not handle. Furthermore, the game does support Rinoa being Ultimecia; I have already cited evidence for this, and if you do not see it, then perhaps it is because of a flaw in dialectical comprehension. The game does offer support for such a theory, hence it is true, valid, and so much more than a ‘figment’ of someone’s ‘imagination.’

You are of course free to believe the theory if you want (I won't stop you), but once you claim that there is logical evidence and hints backing it up, then you have to expect an argument based on such a premise. And as I am hopefully showing, R=U fails under such a premise.

No, you fail to show any kind of logical evidence or any other kind of evidence which tips the balance in favor of Rinoa not being Ultimecia. I appreciate you ‘not stopping’ me in believing the theory, but I do not believe the theory merely because I find it entertaining. I find a lot of theories entertaining, many of them from fan-fiction, but I do not believe them because they have no logical or in-game support for their suppositions. Rinoa being Ultimecia does however, and I hope one day you’re able to get beyond inflexibility to realize what is possible and what is plausible in a Final Fantasy game, especially in Final Fantasy VIII. Rinoa=Ultimecia not only triumphs in possibility, but it excels in plausibility and probability as well. Hopefully, you noticed in my previous post that those two words are not the same.

2)

You refer to the R=U theory being backed up by hints and such in the game (despite not actually referring to a single example), but I disagree. I am perfectly familiar with all hints used to support the R=U theory (I'd even dare to say I came up with a few orginal ones myself), and after years of arguments, none have stood the test of careful scrutiny. To save you the trouble of having to write up all the examples you can think of though, I'll rather tell you to read the "Time/Ultimecia Plot FAQ" found here:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/game/197343.html

The R=U section goes through everything relevant to the theory, including all the so-called hints and evidence. If you read through all the counterarguments carefully, and still find reason to believe R=U (besides blind belief due to it being a conceivable scenario), please do explain why here.

I referred to plenty examples, so I do not know why you blatantly lie that I ‘have not referred to a single example.’ All the examples you need are in my previous post, and just because you failed to address all my points in it or if you simply ignored it, does not mean it is missing justification. I don’t need any of your help to track down further in-game hints’ about Rinoa being Ultimecia. Frankly, I am appalled that you would say I did not cite one example when my above post is littered with examples and third party writings. If you continue like this, I fear you will never really appreciate the facts and logic supporting Rinoa being Ultimecia.

I’ve already addressed all counterarguments, and I’m not about to go on a wild goose chase when you yourself had no respect to respond to my previous post which was full of the same ‘hints’ you are showing me here.

3)

Falseheads Plot Analysis is down right bad, flawed and sometimes simply wrong when it comes to the discussion of Time, time compression and R=U.

To give an example from one passage you quoted, falsehead states that "There are many odd aspects to Rinoa. We are told Sorceresses get their potential powers at age five (then it seems they have to inherit full powers from a dying Sorceress)". In fact though, this supposed fact is quite false. What the game says is that one sorceress (Edea) gained powers from a dying sorceress at age 5. Falsehead, clearly not familiar enough with the facts of the game, confuses this with meaning that all sorceress gain potential powers at age 5 and that powers must be received from a dying sorceress, despite the fact that Edea is by no means dying when she gives Rinoa her powers.

Falseheads plot analysis is logical, correct, and speaks with great soundness. She may have a few minor errors, but the majority of her evaluation is supported by clear in-game examples and logical support. Also, Falsehead writes that sorceresses get their potential powers at age 5, and in the case of Rinoa, they did not actually manifest until much later when the chain of events which would lead her to be possessed by Edea and Ultimecia is already set in motion.

I could cite more examples if you want, but I think you get the idea. Her analysis on multiple dimensions using quantum dynamics is overly complex and rather vain really (unless she has a Ph.D in theoretical physics, she probably shouldn't be talking about what is and is not possible through quantum dynamics, especially since most real scientists actually think timetravelling to the past is impossible). There are infinitely simpler ways to explain the timeloop in the game, ones which don't require shallow use of modern scientific concepts.

Most real scientists consider time traveling to be impossible? Where did you hear that? I am majoring in physics and I can tell you soundly that her analysis of time manipulation is not bad, in theory. Also, I trust you have heard of Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity? Not only does it allow for time dilation and time travel, but such possibilities have been substantiated by generations of physicists and thinkers who have followed Einstein. Why would you comment on something when you know virtually nothing at all about it?

Why would you even state ‘quantum dynamics?’ This has virtually nothing to do with time travel, and you are only demonstrating your continued inflexibility and outrageous assumptions. Also, why would you even think to compare the universe in Final Fantasy VIII with our universe in such a blunt manner? Your entire above quote does not make any sense, and betrays extreme ignorance. If Rinoa is Ultimecia, the explanation of the time-loop in the game is by no means simple at all- it is extremely complex.

I am presuming this is inspired by falseheads Plot Analysis (similarities are at least present)? As explained though, that Plot Analysis is simply not good when it comes to time and R=U. The only reason it has remained unchanged for so long is because she told me she simply "didn't have time to update it" (after I sent her a mail pointing out all the flaws).

I was not inspired by falsheads plot analysis, so you are once again incorrect in your assumption, just like you are incorrect in assuming that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. I’ve already acknowledged all the flaws, but my entire premise can completely disregard falseheads’ ideas and still hold valid and true.

Although this is also not particularly important, I thought I should let you know that using falseheads Plot Analysis as a basis for your arguments probably won't be a good idea.

I already told you, lol, that I did not use falseheads’ plot analysis for the basis of my arguments, or the basis of anything. Did you even bother to read at least half of my previous post? My arguments are entirely original (I came up with Rinoa being locked in stasis in the Sorceress Memorial), and they are based on sound logic and in-game evidence. I am actually probably going to write something along the lines of a plot analysis in regards to Ultimecia being Rinoa, so that more people can see what is more plausible and more probable. So let’s stop the assumptions before we really get carried away. Not only did you admit to bypassing my previous post, but now you make false claims about them. You didn’t even respond to them! I on the other hand have responded to every single false writing you have posted, but you fail to see the logic and evidence.

4)

Just fealt like pointing out that the timeloop isn't nearly as insanely complex as you make it out to be. It is perfectly possible to explain it satisfactorily (although the circular logic it creates is hard to comprehend, it doesn't mean the loop in itself is beyond comprehension). You call me close-minded, but I feel inclined to suggest that it is you who are close-minded for not thinking we are capable of understanding it.

For the take on time, and the timeloop, I'll refer back to the previously linked FAQ.

If Rinoa is indeed Ultimecia, then the time-loop is not only insanely complex, but it is the most complex fictional time-loop scenario that I have ever seen. I do believe you are close-minded, because you keep making assumptions and hypocritical statements even after we have been arguing for many pages now. I’m not going to go into details again here because I have already addressed them above and in my last post.

---

Hopefully I got with myself the most important bits, and explained myself well enough. If you think I missed out something crucial, please let me know. The main point is in point 1 though, so deal with that if anything.

Oh, I understood everything you said. Most of what you said resounded with an assuming hypocrisy, and in combination with the fact that you did not address my previous points, I find your entire position even more fragile. Rinoa is Ultimecia- this is what is of greater probability and plausibility. I do not state it with absolute certainty, but if you have any other questions or problems with the theory, I’ll be ever so happy to continue chatting with you. I look forward to your response.

-LYCHON

[Sir Bahamut]

Like I stated previously, it is really difficult to carry on an intelligent and logical argument if you ignore the points of the person you are arguing with. Nothing I wrote previously was irrelevant, and by carrying on this argument with you, I have actually become even more convinced that Ultimecia is Rinoa. Actually, I am more sure that this is a fact than I have been sure of many other things.

I would have appreciated if you answered quote by quote, but I see that you choose to concede parts of this argument. I have already logically proven that Rinoa can be Ultimecia and that it is not at all unlikely for her to be Ultimecia. Not only have I defended this point logically, but I have cited examples from the game which are considered canonical that further support the theory.

Wow. Just wow. Do you think a discussion on my "unbending personality" or my accusation of "petty insults" is so crucial to the validity of the R=U theory that you would claim it hinders the argument when I try to get rid of what was quickly turning into a petty squabble? Or perhaps it is the discussion of how many of your in-game examples I missed (the italicised 's' was meant as an act of goodwill you know, to fess up to me having missed some of your earlier post) which you find so vital?

My decision to not go quote by quote was done because half your last post (and large bits of my last post too) was concerned with such stupid issues, when the discussion is in fact about the validity of R=U. Furthermore, several of your replies were all about the same thing, and basically said the exact same thing. By rather cutting straight to the bits that mattered, I had hoped to steer the argument back on track again, but judging by your even more relentless references of me being "unbending" and gaining no joy from FF8, that's not something you seem to want. On top of that, you even have the nerve to claim that I must have conceded to various aspects of the discussion? That's real big of you, I must say. Regardlessly, I will continue to ignore all parts of your post dealing with such irrelevant matters, because I am not interested in a mud-slinging contest. If you honestly think that is a sign that I must be conceding, then be my guest. I would rather not continue arguing in such a manner, even if it meant you feeling the victory is on your side.

But since you insist so, I can gladly answer quote by quote, even if it means repeating myself. I will not, however, go back to the previous post, because everything I wanted to say about it I already did. Again, if you see this as a victory on your part, be my guest. Oh, and I won't deny the possibility that there are traces of frustration and annoyance in this post, just so we're clear.

You have already claimed that you believe that Rinoa is not Ultimecia by stating that you have faith in a “plausible absolute.” This is not simply a point of not knowing for sure- this is a point of plausibility and logical probability. If you had read my entire post previously, you would have payed greater attention to the part in bold which specifically makes for an argument of the plausibility and even the probability for Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. Remember how I stated before that probability is on your side? I have changed my mind on this- both probability and plausibility are on my side, and therefore if any “plausible absolute” is to be made, it is to be in support of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Well, I suppose I'll have to do a piece by piece breakdown of the bolded part of your last post then, and explain to you more specifically why I said what I did last post.

Scenario: The sorceresses in Rinoa’s time and in Rinoa’s future suffer intense persecution following the failed attempt of Time Compression. They want to prevent any sorceress from possibly becoming the feared Ultimecia, or someone of the like, so they unfairly target any and all sorceress for extermination. This may lead some sorceresses to go into hiding and eventually they may harden their hearts enough against the world for persecuting them, causing them to hate the world and wishing to destroy it. This is a popular scenario which has been discussed as a possibility of why Ultimecia wants to destroy normal time.

So far so good.

Furthermore, another theory, which I myself have developed, is that Rinoa becomes persecuted and is locked away in stasis, just like Adel.

Not so good this time, I'm afraid. as you point out later in this bolded section, Esthar tried to seal Rinoa earlier in the game, but Squall wouldn't let them. In fact, a major point is made out of Squall realising that he cannot live with Rinoa sealed away. Where is Squall in this scenario then? Why on earth has he suddenly let Rinoa get sealed away? What about Laguna? He's the President of Esthar (ie. the kind of man you'd hope was responsible for who gets sealed and not), and he knows Rinoa very well (she's his son's girlfriend even). In fact, Rinoa was instrumental in Laguna and Odine's plan to defeat Odine. Without Rinoa, Ultimecia wouldn't be defeated. What has happened to Laguna then? Has he forgotten about all this and simply let Rinoa get locked away anyway?

The concept of Rinoa being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial is a way to let Rinoa live to see Ultimecias era, but as you can see, you have some rather serious problems to explain before this is even remotely a possibility.

After generations in stasis, perhaps someone frees Rinoa (maybe a psychological remnant manifestation of Squall (aka Griever) because he swore to be Rinoa's knight, and will do anything to be with her and have her be free. This also explains the last scenes of the game when the SeeD team is fighting against Ultimecia and Griever. Squall and Rinoa may in effect be fighting against their future selves!!).

Perhaps someone frees her, eh? A psychological manifestation of Squall? Certainly very imaginitive, but where is the logic behind it? In fact, if you knew anything at all about Griever, you would know that he is a GF created by Ultimecia in the final battle based on images in Squalls mind. He certainly is not some spiritual or psychological remnant of Squall. How do I know this? You would have known had you read the FAQ I linked you too, but here, let me copy and paste for you:

"[...]the only suggestion offered in-game is that it is
a creature that Squall conceived of in his own mind, as Scan tells us that in
Squall's mind, Griever is the strongest GF:

"Griever
In Squall's mind, the strongest GF. Through Ultimecia's power, continues
fighting without vanishing."

Further, Ultimecia's Witch Embodiment powers granted her the ability to reach
into other's minds and pull things out (as she often displays when completely
removing a character's stock of a certain type of Spell). In the case of
Griever, she simply manifested the thoughts she pulled from Squall's mind
regarding what he believed to be the most powerful being in existance. This
would be a great strategical move on Ultimecia's part. This is made even
more plausible when examining what the japanese version has Ultimecia say:

Ultimecia: Your feelings, I shall summon the most powerful of things
[from them]! The more strongly you feel, that will be what shall torment
you. Fufu."

As you can see, Griever was clearly created there and then, and thus cannot
be used to form a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia. "

Your claim there is obviously in no way logical at all.

Therefore, as you can see, there is evidence in the game to draw a conclusion of possibility and plausibility that Rinoa can become/is Ultimecia. If she is placed in stasis and captured, just like Adel was, and then later released, just like Adel was, the argument of "normal life spans" gets thrown COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW.

That's all well and good, but as I pointed out earlier (see the repetition that comes about through quote by quote answering? It just makes things more complicated sometimes), there are serious flaws in the idea that Rinoa was persecuted and sealed away soon after the game (ie. because neither Squall, leader of SeeD, or Laguna, president of Esthar, were likely to let that happen). Until you deal with them, I won't pursue the issue of how you can call this "evidence", because quite frankly, I don't have to.

Also, remember that Esthar already attempted to place Rinoa in a sorceress prison, but Squall would not allow it. So I am not pulling this 'out of thin air.' This is what happens because this is Final Fantasy, and that is the explanation of the entire game. The cycle of sorceress persecution causes Rinoa to become Ultimecia, and then everything is explained. Damn I'm good! lol

As stated though, the fact that Squall stopped them must have slid right past you even though you made a point out of it right here.

I agree though, that the persecution of sorceresses is what created Ultimecia. However, it is hardly necessary for R=U in order for this to work (again, I refer to the FAQ I linked to), and in fact, due to the flaws of the R=U theory, work better if the theory is NOT correct.

As you can see, your bolded section hardly makes for a convincing case. Not only was the premise it was based upon flawed, you offered no actual in-game examples which foreshadowed the event. Recall that when Square added the idea that Laguna is Squalls father, they made the hints clear and fairly easy to see. Considering how big a thing R=U is, don't you think it's absolutely essential of you to come with some good 'hints' for the theory? You have so far come with none. Questionable logic based on shaky foundations spiced up with a few in-game references do not make for a 'hint', by the way. A hint is more along the lines of the Moomba calling Squall 'Laguna' coupled with the fact that Moombas recognise people by their blood.

But I know already I'll be repeating this later, so why bother now, eh?

We are not arguing about any random fact here (such as Irvine having a sex change, which you so ‘tastelessly’ brought up, lol). We are arguing about a theory which has definite logical support and even in-game support.

Ignoring the fact that you took the Irvine bit quite out of context, even though I went to great lengths to explain it last post, I must question your claim of "definite logical support and in-game support". I have yet to see much of either, even though I know you'll disagree wildly here.
Tell you what, why don't you compile a list of all the in-game events/quotes which clearly foreshadow the R=U scenario you imagine, and then all the logical arguments which can be used to deduce R=U (taking into account the flaws pointed out earlier in this post). If you think I should know it all by now, consider it a favour to a dumb poster who gets confused due to the fact that half the posts are quotations and the other half are irrelevant comments about his personality (and yes, I know that is an exaggeration; you are aware that not all statements are meant entirely literally, I hope).

Post it all here, and I can deal with them one by one, which you so seem to enjoy. It'll be easier at least for me that way. Regarding the 'hints' though, I would once again refer the the FAQ before posting them, because I think you'll find most of them have lost their validity.

People in real life argue about the existence or non-existence of God, but neither side has significant proof to completely change the balance. Hence, it is not simply an argument about possibility; it is an argument of probability and plausibility, and as I have proved in my previous post and as I have stated above, both are in support of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Except you haven't (yet, anyway), as explained above.

You are arguing a sophism. Like I stated above, Rinoa being Ultimecia is not an argument pulled out of thin air. The arguments you listed above about tortoises and elephants are just that: arguments pulled out of thin air. Therefore, you are incorrect to classify the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory into the same group of imaginary figments. There is both logical and solid evidence to support such a conclusion, and if you choose to ignore it, then that is up to you.

Do you think I would have found it even remotely possible to write the aforementioned FAQ if I am ignoring all the "logical and solid evidence" backing up the R=U theory? If you had even skimmed through it, you would have found it dealt with any hint and argument you can think of (I'd be willing to bet). In fact, in the first versions of that FAQ, I was arguing pro-R=U! I know I said I would ignore all irrelevant comments, but I found your assertion that because I don't believe the R=U theory I must somehow be ignoring all the evidence you claim to exist (yet as stated, haven't shown anyone yet) so absurd, that I simply couldn't let it pass. Unless you have any clue about me, my past, or even something as trivial as the FF8 Plot FAQ I co-wrote, you would be better of leaving such snide remarks (nice touch with the smiley face by the way; you couldn't have made it more condescending if you tried) to yourself.

Moving on to the relevant part of your post though, you are taking me out of context. My point was that considering all possibilities leads to a logical quagmire, as demonstrated by the pink elephants or whatever. Because of this, we must judge all theories according to a certain standard; ones who don't make the cut are not considered valid. R=U doesn't make the cut. It cannot be considered valid. R=U may have more 'backing' to it than pink elephants, but if the arguments are flawed or hopeless, it does belong on the same group.

Again, you must by all means prove me wrong by coming with a list of in-game support, hints and flawless logic which makes it quite clear that R=U, but as pointed out numerous times, you have yet to do so.

Perhaps the authors of the game did have something definite as an ending, or perhaps they didn’t. By making the assumption that the authors definitely do not support Rinoa=Ultimecia is a baseless and unfounded assumption. It is far more likely that the authors of the game purposely left so many questions unanswered, and have purposely continued to leave these questions unanswered because they in fact meant Rinoa to be Ultimecia all along. We have no idea of knowing exactly what the authors thought, so it is foolish to even bring them up as a point of defense for your argument.

Foolish? I disagree. The majority of FF games have had simple plots with no major open endings. Even FF7, which you might have used as an argument, is now being resolved through Advent Children and the likes. Final Fantasy X was resolved though X-2. The rest of them had no open-endings. Furthermore, all through FF8, the classic fairy tale scheme is used with Squall being the knight having to save the princess (Rinoa), who is endangered repeatedly through the game to the point of cliche. In the ending we clearly see them united in love, perfectly in accordance with the games themes of love and dependance on others. R=U would twist that completely around, and the fact of the matter is that Square don't have a reputation of doing that. In fact, in most FF's, they do the opposite. In FF8, true, they to a certain extent leave Ultimecias background up for discussion, but there are far more plausible backgrounds for her than R=U, as touched upon more below by the content of the Ultimania.

As for the authors intending for Rinoa to be Ultimecia? As stated, when they added Laguna being Squalls father, they made it clear. The 'hints' (which you have not yet given might I add) for the R=U theory are not even close to being as obvious as the Laguna-Squall hints, and all have much more plausible alternate explanations (again referring to the FAQ). Furthermore, there is absolutely not a peep about it in the Ultimania Guide, which is supposed to be Square's vehicle for filling us in on all the fuzzy plot details. Instead of mentioning anything remotely resembling the R=U theory, they rather explain that "sorceresses have human lifespan", a crushing blow to the theory meaning you have to resort to flawed scenarios using the Sorceress Memorial. Don't you think that if the authors intended it, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the Ultimania, and that they would have made it slightly more obvious? As it is, not a single person I have spoken to thought that Rinoa was Ultimecia after playing the game. All of them heard of the idea on the net. How about you?

All we have to go on is what is given in the game and what can be logically concluded. As I have already proven, it is both probable and plausible that Rinoa does become Ultimecia. This has nothing to do with your concept of “anything is possible” or “anything is plausible.” Myself and other supporters of this theory are basing our argument from fact and logic. If you have worthy facts and logic that support Irvine getting a sex-change, then I would like to hear them.

As you said though, we are not discussing Irvine, so instead of me giving you arguments, I'd rather repeat my request to see your arguments for R=U. Because you have proven nothing, given no hints, and provided only flawed reasoning so far. Again, I would advise you to list your case in one bigger, more structured form to help me see exactly what 'evidence' and 'logic' it is you have. Because it honestly doesn't mean a thing if you claim to have evidence when you haven't given any (which isn't either flawed or based on a flawed premise).

My imagination does not interfere with fact and logic, but I believe your imagination does.

Then pray tell, what part of the game is it that specifically implies that Rinoa will be sealed up despite the flaws mentioned; what part of the game hints at Rinoa becoming Ultimecia; what part of the game implies that Squalls psychological remnants turn into Griever who release Rinoa.

Because last time I checked, these are all products of your imagination, and certainly not provided by the game itself.

I have already addressed in my previous post that it is plausible for the persecution of sorceresses because of Ultimecia to affect Rinoa, and have her be locked in stasis in the Sorceress Memorial.

Except, as I pointed out, you have not made it plausible at all, because both Squall and Laguna would clearly not let such a thing happen.

What’s more, the fact that Ultimecia achieved time compression signifies that she changed the past: she reached from the future and she altered all time, including Rinoa and Squall’s time. Perhaps she really was Rinoa, but now since she has altered the past, Rinoa may not become her, and that is why the game has a happy ending. The logic behind this makes sense, and it is by no means ‘pulled from thin air.’

Let me get this straight. You are here implying that in a different timeline, Rinoa became Ultimecia, but that she changed the past to what we see, thereby eliminating all traces of how she originally became Ultimecia, creating a timeline in which Rinoa does not become Ultimecia.

And how exactly is that not pulled out of thin air? Last time I played the game, I found no references to alternate dimensions or timelines in which Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. Did I miss something?

That’s funny how you keep calling it a ‘figment of my imagination.’ Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is something that far escapes my imagination. The entire R=U theory is much closer to solid fact than an arbitrary piece of fan-fiction gone wild. If you find this difficult to comprehend because of your unending inflexibility, then I cannot help you, but this does not change the logic and evidence behind the theory. The scenario already has plenty of support, as I have demonstrated, and its logical justification is strong as steel..

As I have demonstrated though, the logical justification is not strong as steel at all (highly rusty steel perhaps), and you have not given 'plenty of support' to the scenario. In fact, the only support you have given (namely that people would fear sorceresses and persecute them, thus backing up Rinoa being sealed away) was clearly flawed, as shown.

If you think I've missed something critical though, I plead you again too systematically list all 'hints', 'support' and 'logical arguments' which back up your scenario. Consider it inept arguing on my part.

A theory is just that: a theory. Myself and others included have offered much evidence and logical support for a conclusion of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Except you haven't. Again, please refer to the FAQ linked to, and/or make a compilation which I can comment on. It helps no one to say that "myself and others and offered much evidence and logical support" without really giving any (except flawed stuff, as mentioned so many times I am beginning to hate writing this post). I could easily say "Well, me and others have offered more evidence for Rinoa not being Ultimecia, so there you are", but without specifying, what is the point? In fact though, I would claim just that, and for specification, I would refer not only to this topic, but for a more systematic dissection to the FAQ.

The R=U theory does not have to be firmly rested on what the game tells us: the game is purposely left with many questions open, and the answers which are most likely are those which have the greatest logical support for probability and plausibility. I have already shown you that the R=U theory has copious amounts of both.

Copious amounts eh? So far, your main scenario rests entirely upon a flawed foundation (Rinoa being sealed) and you have not provided a single 'hint' foreshadowing R=U. Maybe we have different feelings about the word copious?

Of course, if you think I am stupid here, please help me gain a better understanding of your argument by listing it more systematically. having spent nearly two hours writing this post and still not being finished, I might well be missing vital bits.

Rinoa can reach Ultimecia’s era is several different ways, so there is certainly at least one way for her to reach the same time period.

Several different ways? Please indulge. Besides being sealed away, what other reasonable possibilities exist? Rinoa developing timetravelling magic? Unfounded, as made clear earlier in the thread. Any others?

The rest of your chunk here I have already answered once or more, so forgive me for jumping to the next bit, because it's kind of late other here and I want to get to bed.

Hypocrisy is fundamental to any logical argument? This is completely erroneous. By the way you conduct dialectics, I can see why you would believe such a false notion.

You accused me of taking you out of context, but ironically enough, your statement here then reeks of hypocrisy itself. You said that I was being hypocritical for stating a certain conclusion about R=U while admitting to true lack of certainty. I then said that, 'hypocrisy' or not, it is an essential part of logical argument, and proceeded to explain why. I did not say that hypocrisy is fundamental to logic. Please reread where you got the quote from before rushing off so eager of having found a new bit of mud to sling.

You keep bringing up the circumstance of Irvine turning into someone else…I have repeatedly asked you to cite support for this, as I have cited both logical and in-game support for Rinoa being Ultimecia. What you are doing is conducting a sophistic argument. You do not realize it, but you are setting up really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. after really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. for me to knock down with the solidity of logic and sound theory.

I have already adressed the reason for Irvine, and your inability to understand why I have not 'cited support' for the claim simply demonstrates your lack of understanding towards my arguments. As for straw men, I wouldn't be so vain if I were you, and rather focus on actually delivering solid logic and sound theory.

The next chunk is basically the same as has been said before (ingame evidence for the game, me being a lousy debater etc.) so again, I will skip past it.

Rinoa being Ultimecia does however, and I hope one day you’re able to get beyond inflexibility to realize what is possible and what is plausible in a Final Fantasy game, especially in Final Fantasy VIII.

Again, I was so apalled at this statement that I couldn't help myself commenting. How many times do I have to mention that I started off supporting the R=U theory? I was even more die-hard than you, if I may say so myself. Your patronising comment only serves to weaken your stance; please do not judge me unless you actually know anything about me.

I referred to plenty examples, so I do not know why you blatantly lie that I ‘have not referred to a single example.’ All the examples you need are in my previous post

Really? I could have sworn I only saw flawed arguments, or logic based on flawed assumptions, or ingame examples not at all relevant to ascertaining the validity of the theory.

I’ve already addressed all counterarguments, and I’m not about to go on a wild goose chase when you yourself had no respect to respond to my previous post which was full of the same ‘hints’ you are showing me here.

Excuse me? You are kidding right? You do realise that both your post, and my FAQ are perfectly visible to the public right? You are honestly claiming that your last post was full of the same hints I have dissected in the FAQ? Ok, then please quote yourself referring to the following hints:

1) Rinoa and Ultimecia both having wings.
2) Ultimecias words during the final battle.
3) Rinoas allusing to wanting time to stand still on the Ragnarok.
4) The location of Ultimecias castle.
5) The possibility of Ultimecias name really being Artemisia.
6) The possible similarity between Rinoa and Ultimecias faces.
7) Ultimecia having Griever.
8) The Japanese instruction booklet referring to Rinoa becoming "warped".

How on earth you can critisice ME for somehow not noticing that your last post referred to all of these, when in fact it referred to none of them, is appalling. Did you even look at the FAQ before stating that?

Please, do yourself a favour and read through the R=U part of the FAQ before responding further. Because those are the types of hints that have been missing in your posts, and your claim that they're really hiding there in the blank spaces of your post is quite frankly ridiculous.

Falseheads plot analysis is logical, correct, and speaks with great soundness. She may have a few minor errors, but the majority of her evaluation is supported by clear in-game examples and logical support. Also, Falsehead writes that sorceresses get their potential powers at age 5, and in the case of Rinoa, they did not actually manifest until much later when the chain of events which would lead her to be possessed by Edea and Ultimecia is already set in motion.

No she does not. She has several 'minor errors' (the idea that a sorceress gets potential powers at 5 is pulled out of thin air), flawed logic and simply overly complex, bad ideas. But I refuse to let this turn into a sub-debate about her FAQ. I'll only respond to whatever of her stuff which you directly use in this argument.

Most real scientists consider time traveling to be impossible? Where did you hear that?

In all the popular science books I have read by Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene for one. And no offense, I'll put a wee bit more trust in them than in you. Wikipedia also backs this up, although you might question it's validity.

Also, I trust you have heard of Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity? Not only does it allow for time dilation and time travel, but such possibilities have been substantiated by generations of physicists and thinkers who have followed Einstein. Why would you comment on something when you know virtually nothing at all about it?

EDIT: I made a gross mistake in my comment here last night, which you may laugh at if you already read it, but in my defense, it was about half past 1 in the morning when I wrote it. Still, I apologise for screwing up here. If you didn't actually read what I said here before editing, don't bother about it. I made a bad mistake, that's all.

True, theory of relativity allows timetravel in theory, but I trust you are familiar with the fact that the requirements for time-travelling through time-dilation are an infinite amount of energy, so the theory of relativity essentially bars time-travelling for any object with a mass. So far (last time I checked anyway) no one had found a way to bypass the light speed boundary, meaning human beings cannot use time-dilation as a means for travelling to the past. That is why Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene believe timetravel to the past to be highly unlikely; because only massless objects or objects initially travelling at greater than light speeds could do it. You might bring up worm holes too, but at that point I'd have to refer you to your own argument later on about not comparing FF8 with the real universe so bluntly.

But please, even though I made a mistake while on the verge of falling asleep last night, I would be very careful about claiming any sort of knowledge about what I do and do not know.

Why would you even state ‘quantum dynamics?’ This has virtually nothing to do with time travel, and you are only demonstrating your continued inflexibility and outrageous assumptions.

Given your apparent admiration for falseheads FAQ, one would think you had actually read it properly. The reason I stated "quantum dynamics" is because that is what falsehead does to intitiate the very argument you claim is quite well done in theory. She says, and I quote: "For example, current Quantum Theory posits that its IS in fact possible to go back in time and kill your own grandfather and still exist to do so."

So which is it? If you say I am mistaken, you just stated that it was in fact quite logical and good, bringing to question your knowledge of both physics and falseheads FAQ. If I am correct here, you still stated that I was wrong. Honestly, I'm getting a bit confused here.

. Also, why would you even think to compare the universe in Final Fantasy VIII with our universe in such a blunt manner?

This is interesting. You think that falseheads time theories are good, yet they automatically assume that the FF8 Universe is identical to ours (by introduing real life concepts of quantum dynamics, or whatever it really is...). Now you shout at me for doing the same, even though one of the very things I disliked about falseheads FAQ was this very same fact? I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

My arguments are entirely original (I came up with Rinoa being locked in stasis in the Sorceress Memorial),

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I already knew of the scenario long before this.

----

I'm done with this post now. I'm sick of repeating myself, sick of your mudslinging, and sicker yet to find you guilty of all the things you accuse me of. I'm going to bed now, and quite frankly, I kind of don't hope I have to go through another stint like this. Please though, before replying at all, read through the FAQ I linked to thoroughly, ok?

PS: Sorry if any gross mistakes have been made in this post, because it's long as hell, and I sure as hell aren't going to reread it all now.

PPS: I realise now that I should have specifically gone through your Sorceress Memorial scenario in my last post, and it is probably understandable that you were annoyed that I didn't. For that I apologise. I have responded to it in detail in this post though.

[Lychon]

Wow. Just wow. Do you think a discussion on my "unbending personality" or my accusation of "petty insults" is so crucial to the validity of the R=U theory that you would claim it hinders the argument when I try to get rid of what was quickly turning into a petty squabble? Or perhaps it is the discussion of how many of your in-game examples I missed (the italicised 's' was meant as an act of goodwill you know, to fess up to me having missed some of your earlier post) which you find so vital?

Any kind of petty squabble was purposely initiated by yourself, and therefore you are again demonstrating your ‘unbending hypocrisy’ by continuing the charade. Your opinions and character are actually completely irrelevant to me when it comes to the validity of the R=U theory, so relax. I have never stated that your inability to argue hindered any of my attempts; on the contrary, it made my conclusions and approach altogether easier. By arguing false logic and assumptions, you have set up a myriad of fragile arguments which you purport to defend as ‘plausible absolutes.’ On top of all this, you simultaneously admit that definitude cannot be claimed by both sides, yet you fail to see the hypocrisy.

Well, you may find it fun to put words into other people’s mouth’s, but I don’t. I never stated anything to be specifically ‘vital’ to my arguments- this is something you have attempted to do. You have claimed to not know for sure whether Rinoa is Ultimecia, yet through your arguments it is apparent that you are definitely convinced that the two are not the same. Therefore, you classify certain points in your argument as ‘vital,’ the same points which I have proven false and inadequate to support any definite claim. What’s more, I have shown that the exact opposite theory has greater validity than the negative suppositron: it is both plausible and possible that Rinoa is Ultimecia.

That’s funny also how you begin your response with “Wow. Just wow.” I laughed a little actually. For someone who attempts to lead a civilized and intelligent argument, it is not the best way to start a response, is it? At least, I don’t think so.

My decision to not go quote by quote was done because half your last post (and large bits of my last post too) was concerned with such stupid issues, when the discussion is in fact about the validity of R=U. Furthermore, several of your replies were all about the same thing, and basically said the exact same thing. By rather cutting straight to the bits that mattered, I had hoped to steer the argument back on track again, but judging by your even more relentless references of me being "unbending" and gaining no joy from FF8, that's not something you seem to want. On top of that, you even have the nerve to claim that I must have conceded to various aspects of the discussion? That's real big of you, I must say. Regardlessly, I will continue to ignore all parts of your post dealing with such irrelevant matters, because I am not interested in a mud-slinging contest. If you honestly think that is a sign that I must be conceding, then be my guest. I would rather not continue arguing in such a manner, even if it meant you feeling the victory is on your side.

Stupid issues? Any issue I addressed was because you chose to continue this argument even after we both agreed that none of us could claim definitude. You were attempting to end the argument because you did not wish to enter a serious debate, not because you thought the argument was ‘stupid.’ If you thought the majority of the argument to be stupid, then why do you even continue to argue? All of my replies were in regards to different things and different areas of the R=U theory, and by failing to address those points, you have conceded those points. You can believe that by not addressing them you are simply ‘bypassing’ my arguments, but by not addressing the points, you are doing nothing else but refusing to acknowledge their validity.

I don’t know if you simply do not have a logical defense for my previous arguments or if you were tired of this argument. I, on the other hand, am not tired of this argument and my convictions that the R=U theory is plausible and probable have only been strengthened throughout this entire conversation. Your entire introduction into this post is made with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual R=U theory, so why are you even complaining about me doing the same in previous posts? You chose to continue this argument and have it degrade to the most basic of points, but even here you prove unbending and hypocritical. I hope this con be corrected so that we can get back on track and you can eventually see the plausibility and probability of Rinoa being Ultimecia. This is, after all, Final Fantasy, is it not?

But since you insist so, I can gladly answer quote by quote, even if it means repeating myself. I will not, however, go back to the previous post, because everything I wanted to say about it I already did. Again, if you see this as a victory on your part, be my guest. Oh, and I won't deny the possibility that there are traces of frustration and annoyance in this post, just so we're clear.

I do not insist on anything, thank you very much, lol . I have only stated that if you do not wish to concede this argument, then you must address all the valid points of the person you are arguing with. You have resorted to respond only to selective quotes, while you ignore the rest. If you do not respond to my previous posts in my previous quotes, as you should have done in your posts immediately following the quotes in question, then this is a concession of your position. It really makes no difference to me, because you never really offered one logical or in-game citation which significantly shook or altered the R=U theory. The only thing that you have done is contradicted yourself by stating that neither side can claim definitude, and then turning around and stating with ‘plausible absoluteness’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

Now, from the quotes that you have addressed, I hope that there is at least something which addresses the actual topic of R=U, and doesn’t continue this ‘petty squabble.’

Well, I suppose I'll have to do a piece by piece breakdown of the bolded part of your last post then, and explain to you more specifically why I said what I did last post.

So far so good.

I’m glad that you are finally addressing an actual argument of mine instead of sophistically circumventing it. As soon as you ‘break it down,’ I can’t wait to logically put it back together, stronger than ever before.

Not so good this time, I'm afraid. as you point out later in this bolded section, Esthar tried to seal Rinoa earlier in the game, but Squall wouldn't let them. In fact, a major point is made out of Squall realising that he cannot live with Rinoa sealed away. Where is Squall in this scenario then? Why on earth has he suddenly let Rinoa get sealed away? What about Laguna? He's the President of Esthar (ie. the kind of man you'd hope was responsible for who gets sealed and not), and he knows Rinoa very well (she's his son's girlfriend even). In fact, Rinoa was instrumental in Laguna and Odine's plan to defeat Odine. Without Rinoa, Ultimecia wouldn't be defeated. What has happened to Laguna then? Has he forgotten about all this and simply let Rinoa get locked away anyway?

The persecution of sorceresses in Rinoa’s time, following Ultimecia’s time compression, becomes to great. All sorceresses are tracked down and are either mercilessly killed or they are locked away in stasis. Given Rinoa’s connections (Squall, and Laguna- President of Esthat), Rinoa is not killed but spared only to be once again taken to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, and Squall is met with an insurmountable force when he tries to free her. This time, there are too many people in the world who fear the possibility of Ultimecia coming into existence, so therefore Squall and company are unable to free Rinoa, try as they may.

Or perhaps Squall leads an insurrection against the Sorceress Memorial, and he is killed along with any of his compatriots who attempted to free Rinoa for a second time from the Sorceress Memorial. Therefore, Squall has no choice when he faces such an insurmountable force- he simply cannot fight the paranoia which sweeps the entire world after Ultimecia achieves time compression. Since Laguna is President of Esthar, Rinoa has the connections so that she is not killed, as most other sorceresses who are tracked down. So great is the persecution caused by the paranoia of the world, that not even the President of Esthar can shield Rinoa completely from it. She is instead granted the right to be imprisoned into the Sorceress Memorial. So there you have it: a perfectly logical justification which utterly destroys your above argument. Actually, your argument above is not really any kind of argument. It is just a series of questions which I have all answered. If this is what you call a ‘breakdown’ of my defenses, then I hate to see what you call a ‘build-up.’

The concept of Rinoa being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial is a way to let Rinoa live to see Ultimecias era, but as you can see, you have some rather serious problems to explain before this is even remotely a possibility.

As I have already explained above, these ‘serious problems’ are not really that serious, and they have all been explained. Secondly, even I did not address your fragile attempt to breakdown my supposition of Rinoa being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, it still does not by any means disprove the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia through this way. And thirdly, since Ultimecia has forever altered the past by achieving time compression, Rinoa may never actually become her, even though she in fact was on a course to become Ultimecia before Ultimecia started interfering with Rinoa’s time.

So as you can ‘see,’ Rinoa has a way that she can become Ultimecia, but since we do not know for sure how much of Rinoa’s time Ultimecia has altered, or what the actual events in Rinoa’s future are, we cannot make a definite statement either way. But given the in-game evidence, and the logical conclusions based on time manipulation, we can see that it is both very possible and very possible that Rinoa can become Ultimecia in Final Fantasy VIII.

Perhaps someone frees her, eh? A psychological manifestation of Squall? Certainly very imaginitive, but where is the logic behind it? In fact, if you knew anything at all about Griever, you would know that he is a GF created by Ultimecia in the final battle based on images in Squalls mind. He certainly is not some spiritual or psychological remnant of Squall. How do I know this? You would have known had you read the FAQ I linked you too, but here, let me copy and paste for you:

Well, we are still talking about Final Fantasy, are we not? This is not your reality where you dictate what is imaginative and what is not. The logic behind such a supposition holds true, even under the sophisms that you throw at it. I did not need to read the link that you had so kindly placed for me because I had already read that exact same link. Now before you spout of again with inflexible hypocrisy and patronization, you should perhaps note the definition yourself. This commonly accepted definition of Griever only adds strength to the logic of my supposition. If Squall is killed in an attempt to rescue an imprisoned Rinoa (as I explained above), then he may have imprinted his psychological identity to the concept of Griever, a concept which he conceived in his mind. This psychological imprint is then brought into existence by Ultimecia (aka Rinoa) when she is met with opponents, and thus we have Griever. And this concept he may have conceived with his dying breath, to uphold his promise that he will protect Rinoa and be her knight, no matter what.

Now, perhaps if you had actually paid closer attention to my previous posts, you would have noticed this logical justification and how it is linked to the accepted definition of Griever. Before you start condescendingly questioning my logic, perhaps you should get your own validations in order so that they are not broken down even further into a state of utter chaos. I am starting to doubt that you have actually even finished the game since you seem to be quoting so many clichéd and known sources.

"[...]the only suggestion offered in-game is that it is
a creature that Squall conceived of in his own mind, as Scan tells us that in
Squall's mind, Griever is the strongest GF:
"Griever
In Squall's mind, the strongest GF. Through Ultimecia's power, continues
fighting without vanishing."

As I addressed this above, the generally accepted definition of Griever only further bolsters the possibility and even probability of the scenario I have already stated. Rinoa (aka Ultimecia) becomes the medium which materializes Squall’s remaining psychological imprint into Griever, the very GF which Squall has always believed to be the greatest and strongest of all GF’s. His only goal now is to keep his promise to Rinoa, and protect her through whatever means possible, and in whatever form necessary.

I was actually saving this argument in a hope that you would bring up the definition of Griever yourself, and you have obliged me most generously. I thank you for this, good sir, and hope that you can continue to be of assistance to me in the future. Now, let’s continue to your other arguments so that we can see what else you want me to justify. Perhaps soon, I should start asking my own questions of why you are stating that you felt Rinoa was not Ultimecia with “plausible aboluteness.” You already admitted that there was no definite evidence either way, so you are going to talk in absolutes, how about you offer some evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia instead of simply trying (and failing) to disprove my arguments?

Further, Ultimecia's Witch Embodiment powers granted her the ability to reach
into other's minds and pull things out (as she often displays when completely
removing a character's stock of a certain type of Spell). In the case of
Griever, she simply manifested the thoughts she pulled from Squall's mind
regarding what he believed to be the most powerful being in existance. This
would be a great strategical move on Ultimecia's part. This is made even
more plausible when examining what the japanese version has Ultimecia say:

Ultimecia: Your feelings, I shall summon the most powerful of things
[from them]! The more strongly you feel, that will be what shall torment
you. Fufu."

As you can see, Griever was clearly created there and then, and thus cannot
be used to form a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia.

"

Your claim there is obviously in no way logical at all.

Incorrect. Ultimecia has become a completely different person than her previous state of Rinoa. By achieving time compression, she has altered Squall and Rinoa’s time, therefore Griever has not yet had a change to become just a psychological remnant of Squall, but Griever is still inside Squall. If Ultimecia had not interfered with Rinoa and Squall’s time, then the natural events cycle would have naturally produced Rinoa as Ultimecia, and possibly Squall into Griever as her knight. But Ultimecia interferes through time compression, and since she obviously already has knowledge of Griever, she extracts Griever from Squall as a means to help her battle against SeeDs who have come to destroy her.

Also, quoting the Japanese version of the game is probably not the best way to go if you want to have greater support of your argument. I do not remember the exact words of Ultimecia when it came to that last scene, but I do recall that they were somehow not exactly as you quote them. Therefore, as you can see, when the element of time manipulation is brought into the mix, it can be seen that Griever may be used as a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia, and hence makes a logical justification of the entire scenario. I’ll understand if you refuse to see this because of your close-mindedness. And remember, I have never stated that Rinoa is definitely Ultimecia; I only wanted to establish the plausibility and possibility of such an event, and so far I have not only been winning due to logical and in-game proof, but I have also been winning because you consistently fail to address my quotes from my posts accurately and sufficiently. Let’s see what’s next.

That's all well and good, but as I pointed out earlier (see the repetition that comes about through quote by quote answering? It just makes things more complicated sometimes), there are serious flaws in the idea that Rinoa was persecuted and sealed away soon after the game (ie. because neither Squall, leader of SeeD, or Laguna, president of Esthar, were likely to let that happen). Until you deal with them, I won't pursue the issue of how you can call this "evidence", because quite frankly, I don't have to.

Quote by quote responses is something crucial, especially in this argument. It’s not a very intelligent tactic to avoid responding to a quote by claiming that such a response will result in ‘complications.’ We are arguing something which is already quite complicated here, and if you want to make any headway in your position instead of quarreling pointlessly, then I recommend you reconsider my previous quotes which you conceded on.

I don’t have to call anything ‘evidence’ and neither do you. We are talking about logical and probably possibilities, which cannot be classified as evidence because we are not sure that they have even happened. The point is that I have already explained the idea of why Laguna or Squall could have been powerless to allow Rinoa to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial. Surely you have heard of the witch hunts and communist panics and Jewish persecutions which have occurred in our own world, right? The same paranoia would be exponentially greater if a sorceress from the future achieved time compression in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. You are too inept in the principles of sociology to understand this right now, but such an intense persecution may have resulted in a quasi-mob mentality to take control over the planet of Final Fantasy VIII. In such an event, even Laguna, President of Esthar, and Squall, sworn protector of Rinoa, may not have been able to save Rinoa from being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial. But, through Laguna’s acquaintance, Rinoa avoids being martyred due to the panic which follows time compression by Ultimecia. I hope you understand this point, since I have repeated here after already stating it above.

As stated though, the fact that Squall stopped them must have slid right past you even though you made a point out of it right here.

I agree though, that the persecution of sorceresses is what created Ultimecia. However, it is hardly necessary for R=U in order for this to work (again, I refer to the FAQ I linked to), and in fact, due to the flaws of the R=U theory, work better if the theory is NOT correct.

I am not necessarily referring to the first time when people attempted to imprison Rinoa in the Sorceress Memorial, so nothing ‘slipped passed me,’ but nice try. By achieving influence in Rinoa and Squall’s time period, Ultimecia has forever altered the course of events in their time period, and therefore Rinoa is saved by Squall before she gets imprisoned into the sorceress memorial. This, however, may not be the only time that people attempt to imprison Rinoa into the sorceress memorial. And since Ultimecia may have forever altered the time line of Squall and Rinoa’s time, it may turn out that Rinoa now will never actually become Ultimecia. This does not mean, however, that Rinoa wasn’t the same Ultimecia as the one who compressed time.

I have stated my above argument many times before, but you seem to skip it as you have skipped my previous posts. This is not a very effective way to argue, and it simply weakens your position instead of strengthening it. Also, where do you get your fact that Ultimecia is created by sorceress persecution? This is a likely scenario, but it is not proven. Since much of Ultimecia’s history cannot be substantiated as fact by the game, it is unwise to imply anything as ‘fact’ when speaking of her. This is another sign of your apparent hypocrisy: you claim to not support definitude in areas where facts are not available, yet you repeatedly contradict yourself by doing the exact opposite.

I have never stated that the R=U theory works because Ultimecia comes into being because she is embittered over sorceress persecution. But the entire R=U theory is greatly supported by such a supposition, not greatly contradicted. If Rinoa ever was put into the stasis of the Sorceress Memorial, and eventually broke free, she may eventually become embittered over the constant persecution of sorceresses, and become Ultimecia.

As you can see, your bolded section hardly makes for a convincing case. Not only was the premise it was based upon flawed, you offered no actual in-game examples which foreshadowed the event. Recall that when Square added the idea that Laguna is Squalls father, they made the hints clear and fairly easy to see. Considering how big a thing R=U is, don't you think it's absolutely essential of you to come with some good 'hints' for the theory? You have so far come with none. Questionable logic based on shaky foundations spiced up with a few in-game references do not make for a 'hint', by the way. A hint is more along the lines of the Moomba calling Squall 'Laguna' coupled with the fact that Moombas recognise people by their blood.

But I know already I'll be repeating this later, so why bother now, eh?

The bolded section of my previous post actually makes a strongly convincing case. If you refuse to see the logical defense for, then that is because of your inflexible close-mindedness. If you want to keep a certain image of Final Fantasy VIII in your mind by not considering logical probability or possibility, then by all means, continue to do so. I have already disproved all of your attempted ‘break downs’ of my arguments, and have strengthened these arguments to new heights.

I offered plenty of in-game examples in support of logical probability and possibility: The persecution of sorceresses; the manifestation of Griever from Squall’s mind; the event of time compression which opens up the entire game to time manipulation; the attempted imprisonment of Rinoa in the Soreceress Memorial; and many more. By stating that I have not offered any sources from the game is either a deliberate lie, or you are once again simply bypassing my arguments because you choose not to acknowledge them. I have so far come up with plenty of logical and in-game evidence that Rinoa is actually Ultimecia, and it is perhaps an idea which the authors of the game wanted to make much more subtle than the idea of Squall being Laguna’s father. Therefore, your comparison of these two scenarios is an assumption of similarity, which is flawed. Besides, you do not even know for sure that Laguna is Squall’s father, so you are once again demonstrating that peculiar ‘tunnel vision’ when you discuss a game such as Final Fantasy VIII.

You can repeat whatever you want to, and I’ll keep repeating my position for as long as you want good sir, . Like I stated above, the game leaves so many questions unanswered, that it may have been deliberately made in such a way so that the idea of Rinoa = Ultimecia remains a very subtle, barely hinted idea. However, when one considers the actual game and the logical conclusions of the theory, it can be seen that it is much more than some common fan-fiction.

Ignoring the fact that you took the Irvine bit quite out of context, even though I went to great lengths to explain it last post, I must question your claim of "definite logical support and in-game support". I have yet to see much of either, even though I know you'll disagree wildly here.
Tell you what, why don't you compile a list of all the in-game events/quotes which clearly foreshadow the R=U scenario you imagine, and then all the logical arguments which can be used to deduce R=U (taking into account the flaws pointed out earlier in this post). If you think I should know it all by now, consider it a favour to a dumb poster who gets confused due to the fact that half the posts are quotations and the other half are irrelevant comments about his personality (and yes, I know that is an exaggeration; you are aware that not all statements are meant entirely literally, I hope).

The only person who is taking anything out of context here is you, lol . By continually citing the poor argument of Irvine getting a sex-change, and comparing it to the R=U theory, you are portraying ignorance, not logic. I once again ask you to tell me what support you have of Irvine getting a sex-change. Since you keep mentioning it, you should have something to back it up. It is by no means a proper comparison which the R=U theory, since the R=U theory simply has so much more in-game and logical support. If you fail to see the evidence and support of the R=U theory, then I am not about to reeducate you in the arts of dialectics and open-mindedness.

Check it out now: The mere ‘fact’ that you are even talking about ‘facts’ to the ending of one of the most questionable and open-ended games ever made is completely irrational. I’m not about to replay the game so I can compile every piece of evidence of action and speech by the characters which support the R=U theory. How about this? Go online and check out what has already been written! Quite a concept, huh? Lol, of course you’re familiar with the commonly known statements of Rinoa when she says that “she doesn’t want the future.” But this is just the surface of the plethora of in-game quotes and evidence which can logically be defended as supporting the concept of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Furthermore, for a person who seems to have difficulties comprehending logic, I would merely be wasting my time if I actually went to ‘compile’ all the in-game references to the R=U theory. It was your choice to stubbornly continue this argument, and you initiated implications of my character being ‘flawed,’ so don’t flatter yourself when you attempt to charge me with doing the same. *clicks tongue* lol, anyways, I look forward to continuing this argument to as far as we can go. I think over the years, you’ve somehow acquired a rather big ‘ego,’ especially in regards to your close-minded and stubborn position in the game of Final Fantasy VIII. Don’t worry: I’m not going anywhere so you can argue with me to your heart’s content.

[

Post it all here, and I can deal with them one by one, which you so seem to enjoy. It'll be easier at least for me that way. Regarding the 'hints' though, I would once again refer the the FAQ before posting them, because I think you'll find most of them have lost their validity.
Except you haven't (yet, anyway), as explained above.

Here’s an idea for you good sir: how about you take the time and compile all of the in-game evidence that supports Rinoa not being Ultimecia? You seem to be so very sure of this ‘fact,’ despite claiming to support that neither side of the argument can claim definitude. So go off and replay the game or scour the internet; let me know everything you find which you believe satisfactorily answer the questions left by the game and that go against the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory.

As much of a compulsive arguer that you may be, I do not back down when I know that someone is wrong, especially when it comes to the game of Final Fantasy VIII, and especially when you refuse to comprehend common logic. So let me know when you have that list for me. I check these forums often, so take your time and relax- no rush. Until then, I’ll go ahead and rely on the logical and in-game support for the idea that Rinoa is Ultimecia. There are countless ‘lists’ which already support the idea of Rinoa being Ultimecia, so you can be one of the first to compile an opposite list: a list of in-game references which actually directly contradict the idea of Rinoa being Ultimecia. I look forward to ‘breaking down’ each one.

Do you think I would have found it even remotely possible to write the aforementioned FAQ if I am ignoring all the "logical and solid evidence" backing up the R=U theory? If you had even skimmed through it, you would have found it dealt with any hint and argument you can think of (I'd be willing to bet). In fact, in the first versions of that FAQ, I was arguing pro-R=U! I know I said I would ignore all irrelevant comments, but I found your assertion that because I don't believe the R=U theory I must somehow be ignoring all the evidence you claim to exist (yet as stated, haven't shown anyone yet) so absurd, that I simply couldn't let it pass. Unless you have any clue about me, my past, or even something as trivial as the FF8 Plot FAQ I co-wrote, you would be better of leaving such snide remarks (nice touch with the smiley face by the way; you couldn't have made it more condescending if you tried) to yourself.

I have more than skimmed through any FAQ you may reference that has been on the internet for at least some time. You are blindly ignoring logical and in-game support for the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory, perhaps because you are set upon defending a certain concept of the game and you refuse to waiver regardless of probability and possibility. Whatever the reason, if you would be willing to bet, that I would like you to immediately send my about $1 million dollars, since I have already proved what I set out to prove: that the R=U theory holds significant possibility and plausibility. You have actually already admitted to the idea that such a possibility can occur, so why would you even consider the childish tactic of offering me a ‘bet’?

The fact that you do not support the R=U theory does not necessarily have to rest upon the postulation that you ignore evidence of R=U. Let the fact stand, however, that I have already shown plenty of in-game evidence and logical conclusion which support the theory, but perhaps you truly did ignore it when you chose to overlook my previous posts and quotations. I do not need to know anything specific about your past. I can already conclude through your false method of argument that you are lacking in the imperative areas of dialectical thinking. Therefore, I do not believe you even remotely qualified to even give advice for a FFVIII FAQ, much less write one! And since you like my smileys so much, I will attempt to include them more often when I communicate with you. Accusing me of being condescending to you is simply an assumption on your part, and also pins you as a hypocrite once again, since I can point out many times in your past communications with me when you seemed downright audacious! (You remember, for example, when you referred above to a certain statement of mine by saying : “That's real big of you, I must say.”?)

Moving on to the relevant part of your post though, you are taking me out of context. My point was that considering all possibilities leads to a logical quagmire, as demonstrated by the pink elephants or whatever. Because of this, we must judge all theories according to a certain standard; ones who don't make the cut are not considered valid. R=U doesn't make the cut. It cannot be considered valid. R=U may have more 'backing' to it than pink elephants, but if the arguments are flawed or hopeless, it does belong on the same group.

Well, I’m glad that you actually came on-topic again, after taking a sidetrack to throw in several unfounded cheap shots at me. Didn’t you state in your first few quotes of this post that you were now ready to get back on track to ‘breaking down’ my arguments? Well, I must say, not only have you not broken down any of my arguments, but you have also failed to stay on-track, constantly implying veiled character libel. I actually find this hilarious, and you can continue the farce if it suits you, but just don’t get to upset when I respond in kind.

No part of your post was taken out of context. (Here you once again become a hypocrite since you already admitted that you bypassed some of my arguments in a previous post, thereby taking part of my post ‘entirely out of context’). Pink elephants and Irvine getting a sex-change are something that is completely unrelated to the argument at hand about Rinoa being Ultimecia. If you have any support for Irvine getting a sex change, then I would like to hear it here.

Theories, especially theories in a game with so many questions such as Final Fantasy VIII, will not be judged by one standard. And if they are judged by only one statement, it most definitely should not be yours since you show a lacking for open-mindedness and an affinity for hypocrisy, at least in my opinion. The R=U theory definitely has enough in-game support and logical support to be substantiated, therefore you probably shouldn’t classify it with the concept of pink elephants or of Irvine getting a sex change.

Again, you must by all means prove me wrong by coming with a list of in-game support, hints and flawless logic which makes it quite clear that R=U, but as pointed out numerous times, you have yet to do so.

I do not need to prove you wrong. As you have already agreed to, neither side can claim definitude in their arguments, so can I possibly prove you wrong with ‘flawless logic’? I find it laughable that you would even use a term such as ‘flawless logic.’ The logic I have already stated is perfectly justifiable, and I have already justified it in my previous posts and above arguments. If you fail to see this, then that is completely your problem, not mine. Secondary, you have an equally difficult burden to prove to me that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. I have already suggested that you hop to it and compile me a list of in-game references of why Rinoa is not Ultimecia. So far you have not listed one valid argument, and certainly none which possess ‘flawless logic.’ Therefore, since the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia has been proved, we can take the idea to be something much greater than pink elephants or some fan-fiction. I still await for you to even bring up one argument which contradicts the R=U theory, lol .

Foolish? I disagree. The majority of FF games have had simple plots with no major open endings. Even FF7, which you might have used as an argument, is now being resolved through Advent Children and the likes. Final Fantasy X was resolved though X-2. The rest of them had no open-endings. Furthermore, all through FF8, the classic fairy tale scheme is used with Squall being the knight having to save the princess (Rinoa), who is endangered repeatedly through the game to the point of cliche. In the ending we clearly see them united in love, perfectly in accordance with the games themes of love and dependance on others. R=U would twist that completely around, and the fact of the matter is that Square don't have a reputation of doing that. In fact, in most FF's, they do the opposite. In FF8, true, they to a certain extent leave Ultimecias background up for discussion, but there are far more plausible backgrounds for her than R=U, as touched upon more below by the content of the Ultimania.

Incorrect. Final Fantasy VIII has is quite possibly the most open-ended and questionable plot from all of the games in the Final Fantasy series, and the concept of Rinoa= Ultimecia can solidly be grounded because all of these questions are unanswered. I have already proven this, but once again you refuse to see what is simple logic and conclusion. In fact, if Rinoa=Ultimecia is indeed true, it would tie up virtually every loose end in the game, and make perfect and flawless logical sense. As I have already mentioned previously, the fact that Ultimecia achieves time compression and alters the time period where Squall and Rinoa reside, she forevers alters the futures of Squall and Rinoa. Hence, Rinoa may now actually never become Ultimecia, which provides an explanation for the happy ending of Final Fantasy VIII. I have repeatedly addressed this notion, but for some reason you fail to tackle this in your rebuttals….

There may be other plausible explanations for the unanswered questions in FFVIII, but we are not discussing such situations. We are discussing the plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and I have logically shown that this scenario is most the likely the best scenario for answering the game’s unanswered questions. Your entire perception of the game seems to be warped: you start spouting off about clichés and unknown backgrounds. Seems to me your imagination is by no means deficient, but one main difference between your argument and mine is that you close your mind to possibility and plausibility, while mine remains open. You even admitted that you agree that neither side can claim definitude, but in these later arguments we can see that you were insincere in that regard.

As for the authors intending for Rinoa to be Ultimecia? As stated, when they added Laguna being Squalls father, they made it clear. The 'hints' (which you have not yet given might I add) for the R=U theory are not even close to being as obvious as the Laguna-Squall hints, and all have much more plausible alternate explanations (again referring to the FAQ). Furthermore, there is absolutely not a peep about it in the Ultimania Guide, which is supposed to be Square's vehicle for filling us in on all the fuzzy plot details. Instead of mentioning anything remotely resembling the R=U theory, they rather explain that "sorceresses have human lifespan", a crushing blow to the theory meaning you have to resort to flawed scenarios using the Sorceress Memorial. Don't you think that if the authors intended it, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the Ultimania, and that they would have made it slightly more obvious? As it is, not a single person I have spoken to thought that Rinoa was Ultimecia after playing the game. All of them heard of the idea on the net. How about you?

I never definitely stated that the author’s intended Rinoa to be Ultimecia. This was merely a possibility, a possibility with is both plausible and logical when the entire game is considered, from beginning to end. I might ‘add,’ that I have given much logical support and in-game references which support the fact that Rinoa is Ultimecia, such as when Rinoa commented on the impending future, a future which she may have gotten a glimpse of and realized that she in fact is Ultimecia. If the authors intended the R=U idea to be a subtle placement in the game, then by no means would they want it revealed or even mentioned in the Ultimania Guide. By not mentioning it, the talk about the game continues, and the plausibility and possibility about the R=U theory remains. Therefore, you have once again yielded false logic when you cite the Ultimania guide as a reference, and the relation between Laguna and Squall does not necessarily have to serve as an example for proving the R=U theory. (Perhaps if you took a step back and looked at the situation with an open-mind, you might see what I am talking about. But then again, that’s just too much to hope for, isn’t it? )

The clause of “sorceresses having human life-spans” is by no means a ‘crushing blow’ to the R=U theory, lol . The scenario of the Sorceress Memorial is defended logically and is by no means a leap of faith for anyone who has played the game and has understood the game. Therefore, your position that these two things disprove R=U has been demolished into the ‘figments’ of your imagination whence it came from. You now greatly err by asking me whether or not I thought Rinoa was Ultimecia when I finished the game. The answer is Yes- I did not read off the internet or from a magazine or hear it from anyone else- the idea was just obvious after I finished the game for a second time, and just to let you know, 2 out 6 people that I know who have played the game also came to the conclusion by themselves that is was possible and plausible that Rinoa was indeed Ultimecia. I guess if Rinoa really is Ultimecia, the authors intended the idea to be so subtle that only a limited number of people would catch onto it. (Why would you ever ask me such a question and risk weakening your argument even more? )

But I think you forget, once again, that I never intended to prove that Ultimecia is indeed Rinoa- I merely wanted to show it plausible and possible. We obviously had an entirely different view of the game, and I will never see it your way, and you will never see it my way.

As you said though, we are not discussing Irvine, so instead of me giving you arguments, I'd rather repeat my request to see your arguments for R=U. Because you have proven nothing, given no hints, and provided only flawed reasoning so far. Again, I would advise you to list your case in one bigger, more structured form to help me see exactly what 'evidence' and 'logic' it is you have. Because it honestly doesn't mean a thing if you claim to have evidence when you haven't given any (which isn't either flawed or based on a flawed premise).

I have proven plenty, I have given plenty of hints, and my reasoning is justified with great reasoning and logic. I have provided my logical and in-game conclusions in previous posts which you have already admitted to have ignored, as well as in my quotes above. How about you start showing me evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia? I have disproved and shot down any kind of attempt you have made to fracture my arguments, so perhaps it is time you begin a different strategy. Like I stated above, I anxiously await your compilation of ‘hints’ and ‘logic’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. I’ve already shown you plenty of logic and evidence to which you have responded poorly, thus rendering my arguments even more valid and true. However, you yourself have failed to provide my with any of your own ‘hints’ or logic which prove that Ultimecia is not Rinoa. So far, you have merely responded to my own logic and in-game references, and yet here you claim that I have not listed any logic or in-game references. When you can learn to conduct a dialectical discussion without serious weaknesses, then perhaps you’ll be able to understand the conclusions and support behind R=U.

Then pray tell, what part of the game is it that specifically implies that Rinoa will be sealed up despite the flaws mentioned; what part of the game hints at Rinoa becoming Ultimecia; what part of the game implies that Squalls psychological remnants turn into Griever who release Rinoa.

Because last time I checked, these are all products of your imagination, and certainly not provided by the game itself.

I have already addressed all the above questions and proved them plausible and possible. I have cited the persecution of the sorceresses; I have cited that Griever comes out of Squall’s mind and I have related this to the combination of time manipulation and the fact that Squall swore to protect Rinoa; I have repeatedly told you that the possibility of Rinoa being in stasis can surely make it possible for her to become Ultimecia in future generations.

By asking me for specific examples, you only serve to embarrass yourself most excellently. “Pray tell”? Spare me, lol, and realize once again that if the authors of the game intended Rinoa to be Ultimecia, then it is purposely made very subtle, and therefore there is nothing that can be claimed with certain definitude, especially with all the questions let unanswered at the games end. You yourself have already agreed that neither side can claim any kind of absolute proof when arguing R=U, and then you went and perjured yourself by claiming an ‘absolute plausibility’ that Rinoa was not Ultimecia. I have addressed the questions in your above quote so many times, and proven their plausibility and possibility so many times, that I wonder if you simply do not understand my words. I try to use words of medium-level difficulty, so I doubt that this is really the problem.

You once again go around one of my main arguments: The events in the game are probably not the same events that would have led Rinoa to become Ultimecia in the future. Since Ultimecia achieved time compression, she has forever altered Squall’s and Rinoa’s time, and therefore Rinoa may never even become Ultimecia anymore. Therefore, there may no evidence even available in the game beyond what I have listed. (For individuals who look upon FFVIII with a closed mind find it difficult to comprehend what I have stated).

The only product of imagination I see here is your wonderfully barren imagination closing any and all possibility and plausibility off to you when it comes to answering the questions posed by Final Fantasy VIII. You again become a hypocrite here because previously you stated that the argument of Rinoa being Ultimecia could not be definitely argued on either side, but by patronizing me here, you imply that such a theory is definitely wrong. Lol, how will we ever get to a common ground? (By the way, didn’t you accuse my previously that of acting condescendingly towards you?)

Except, as I pointed out, you have not made it plausible at all, because both Squall and Laguna would clearly not let such a thing happen.

I have made Rinoa being Ultimecia extremely plausible, and you simply refuse to accept it because of stubbornness. I already wrote above that the paranoia which might sweep over the world after time compression may overwhelm even Laguna’s position as President or Squall’s sworn promise as protector of Rinoa. If you want all the details in regards to my defense of this, perhaps you should re-read some of my earlier writing in this same post up above.

Let me get this straight. You are here implying that in a different timeline, Rinoa became Ultimecia, but that she changed the past to what we see, thereby eliminating all traces of how she originally became Ultimecia, creating a timeline in which Rinoa does not become Ultimecia.

And how exactly is that not pulled out of thin air? Last time I played the game, I found no references to alternate dimensions or timelines in which Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. Did I miss something?

Relax, we’re just having a nice little conversation here, right? Lol, if you do not understand the complexities of time manipulation, then perhaps you should not argue it. Your statements about time travel have already betrayed you as someone extremely incapable of arguing on the subject, so your above quote is really a desperate attempt to bypass perfect logic with variable sophisms. You did manage to summarize it quite well, though. It has not been pulled out of thin air at all and it is perfectly logical. The game already shows two time periods which may in fact be alternate timelines or even alternate universes. Let me see if I can relate this to you through an example (perhaps this will help you understand):

Say that you are in a timeline which will eventually result in you marrying a girl named Chrissie, and having a son names George. Now imagine what would happen if your son George came back in time to you before you even met Chrissie. In your time, you have not even had a son yet, but George is nevertheless alive because he comes from the future. George’s mere presence in your time is already changing things, but imagine now that George comes to you and tells you not to marry Chrissie and not to have kids, whatever the reason may be for him telling you this. Now, if George has managed to come to your time line through time compression, then he has stepped outside of the linear time effect, and therefore would not vanish from existence because he caused his father(you) in the past never to marry and have children with his mother Chrissie. But the moment that time compression ceases, and time returns to normal, George will vanish from existence in the future, because he caused his father never to marry Chrissie and never to have Chrissie give birth to him.

As we can see, it was George from the future who changed the past and caused the past to be altered. Because George traveled in the past and did what he did, he changed the past by causing his dad not to marry Chrissie and not to father any children. This altered time line will now continue, but it will never result in George coming into existence. I hope you can understand this principle, because this is only a VERY basic presentation of the consequences of time manipulation. Now replace George with Ultimecia, and the scenario with the plot of Final Fantasy VIII, and you can see why it is possible that Ultimecia can result in negating herself. The only way she would save herself would be if she maintained time compression, but she was defeated and therefore she perished for all time. I hope you can understand this, because I have studied this idea in my college classes and have discussed it many times, and honestly, I am surprised at your shamelessness that you actually choose to argue time manipulation with me when you presented your lack of knowledge on the subject in your past post, lol .

As I have demonstrated though, the logical justification is not strong as steel at all (highly rusty steel perhaps), and you have not given 'plenty of support' to the scenario. In fact, the only support you have given (namely that people would fear sorceresses and persecute them, thus backing up Rinoa being sealed away) was clearly flawed, as shown.

If you think I've missed something critical though, I plead you again too systematically list all 'hints', 'support' and 'logical arguments' which back up your scenario. Consider it inept arguing on my part.

I believe you are again incorrect. The scenario I offered was logically justified, and it is most definitely as strong as steel. Actually, it is as strong as titanium, no wait, it is stronger than that as well. I already proved you wrong in the quote above about Ultimecia’s time manipulation, and you have already been proven wrong regarding all the other scenario’s you cite against the R=U theory. I have cited much, much more than merely sorceress persecution, but you seem to ignore all that and continue to ask for ‘evidence.’ If you actually take the time to read my posts and don’t ignore them (as you admitted) you would see the logic and evidence which I have cited. The support for the R=U theory both has great credence in the realms of possibility and plausibility.

You don’t need to plead with me, but I am not about to re-list everything I have already stated and proved to you. All of my in-game references and logical support for my arguments has been justified and referenced in this post or in my previous post which you admitted to ignoring. If you choose to ignore it, then you are conceding this argument to me. I have actually already asked you to do the same, since until now you have only attempted (and failed, ) to disprove my position. I would have no qualms with you listing all the ‘hints, support, and logical arguments’ you believe support the idea that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. You don’t have to claim yourself inept in argument- it’s already a moot point, lol .

Except you haven't. Again, please refer to the FAQ linked to, and/or make a compilation which I can comment on. It helps no one to say that "myself and others and offered much evidence and logical support" without really giving any (except flawed stuff, as mentioned so many times I am beginning to hate writing this post). I could easily say "Well, me and others have offered more evidence for Rinoa not being Ultimecia, so there you are", but without specifying, what is the point? In fact though, I would claim just that, and for specification, I would refer not only to this topic, but for a more systematic dissection to the FAQ.

Thank you for linking me to the FAQ, but like I have already stated, I know of almost every FAQ that has been on the internet, including the one you are referring to. I have already disproved your arguments from that FAQ, so I don’t know why you keep referencing it. I have given no flawed evidence- all of my evidence has been backed up with logic and in-game references. You continue to refuse to acknowledge them and you keep repeating over and over and over and over again that I have not cited any “evidence.” Not only have I argued against using the term ‘evidence’ when it comes to the unknown plausibility and probability of Final Fantasy VIII’s questions, but I have also successfully argued against your counter-arguments which hold absolutely no water. If they did, then I would reverse my position, or at least revive it. Your arguments were in fact so weak, that I was forced in taking my position to an even higher level of certainty than before.

I never relied on the evidence of others to prove my points. I only brought in one 3rd party reference just so I can add a reflection of my ideas. I did not need the plot analysis done by Sophie Ceshire, and I most certainly do not need your FAQ, which I have seen and have concluded that I have already disproved all the points in that flawed writing.

Copious amounts eh? So far, your main scenario rests entirely upon a flawed foundation (Rinoa being sealed) and you have not provided a single 'hint' foreshadowing R=U. Maybe we have different feelings about the word copious?

Of course, if you think I am stupid here, please help me gain a better understanding of your argument by listing it more systematically. having spent nearly two hours writing this post and still not being finished, I might well be missing vital bits.

Exactly: ‘copious amounts’. Actually, huge amounts of logical and in-game evidence, only deniable by a person whose defense foundations are being crumbled, and in a desperate attempt to salvage their remnants, they resort to stubbornness instead of admitting defeat. Actually, I would have had more writing in regards to my evidence and logic if I wasn’t busy responding to your ‘off-topic character insults’ every single post.

My foundation lays on firm ground: the logical conclusions behind sorceress persecution, the manifestation of Griever from Squall’s mind, the plausibility of Rinoa getting locked away again in the Memorial because of paranoid mania, and also the change of the past due to Ultimecia’s influence in Squall and Rinoa’s time. All have been logically justified and proven plausible and perhaps even probable. I have also given many in-game references, including Rinoa’s rhetoric about not wanting to face future events.

Like I have already stated, I’m not about to become your researcher so I can prove to you something that you should have grasped 10 posts ago. All of the logic and in-game references are in my posts, including this one, and you can see how they are justified. If you do not agree with them, then you can choose to agree with something that better fits your view of what you wanted Final Fantasy VIII to be. Lastly, if you think this argument is going to be over with 2-3 hour posts, then you have vastly underestimated the complexity of the issue. You previously stated that the time issue in Final Fantasy VIII was much ‘less complex’ than I was making it out to be, but with the proof of R=U’s possibility and plausibility, I hope that you see that this is not the case.

Several different ways? Please indulge. Besides being sealed away, what other reasonable possibilities exist? Rinoa developing timetravelling magic? Unfounded, as made clear earlier in the thread. Any others?

The rest of your chunk here I have already answered once or more, so forgive me for jumping to the next bit, because it's kind of late other here and I want to get to bed.

I have already stated this, and you are repeating yourself once again. If you look below the bold writing in my other post, you’ll notice that I have listed also another possibility regarding how Rinoa can become Ultimecia. I’m not particularly fond of people purposely repeating themselves and thus making me repeat myself just because you refuse to see the clear logic and defense in the R=U theory. This is what I posted in the other thread regarding another way Rinoa may become Ultimecia, even though I was talking out of pure speculation on this:

“Once again, we do not know the circumstances of Rinoa’s future. Another one of my theories, this one however a bit less supported in the game as the one I have placed in bold above: Rinoa may become Ultimecia and then somehow project her essence to successive generations in the future, waiting until she is powerful enough or until the circumstances are right for her to achieve time compression. Therefore, her body may wither and die, but it will still be the same person. She may not be able to control time, but she may be able to continuously project herself to future sorceresses, and we have already seen the plethora of possibility when it comes to projection and time in FFVIII.”

Like I said, the above is pure speculation, unlike the option which leads Rinoa to be put in stasis in the Sorceress Memorial, which is actually solidly grounded in fact and proven plausible by myself.

You continue to skip over my posts, only to ask for information I have already supplied (as you just did above). That’s fine by me, just know that until you answer the posts that you have not answered as of yet, I consider this argument completely mine, and what I am doing here is merely trying to guide you into the light, so to speak, lol .

You accused me of taking you out of context, but ironically enough, your statement here then reeks of hypocrisy itself. You said that I was being hypocritical for stating a certain conclusion about R=U while admitting to true lack of certainty. I then said that, 'hypocrisy' or not, it is an essential part of logical argument, and proceeded to explain why. I did not say that hypocrisy is fundamental to logic. Please reread where you got the quote from before rushing off so eager of having found a new bit of mud to sling.

No, your explanation of ‘hypocrisy’ being part of logic was pure malarkey, lol . And besides, this does not at all relieve you from the fact that you did perjure yourself by stating that neither side could claim definitude and then turning around in your next post and defending your argument with “plausible absoluteness.”

Your above quote is actually hypocritical in of itself, and I’ll explain why. You say that hypocrisy is not fundamental to logic, but then you say that hypocrisy is essential to logic. This is an oxymoron, so you have either unknowingly contradicted yourself here, or you are once again being hypocritical. No need to become impetuous by stating that I was attempting to sling mud at you. I was merely pointing out another one of your logical fallacies.

I have already adressed the reason for Irvine, and your inability to understand why I have not 'cited support' for the claim simply demonstrates your lack of understanding towards my arguments. As for straw men, I wouldn't be so vain if I were you, and rather focus on actually delivering solid logic and sound theory.

The next chunk is basically the same as has been said before (ingame evidence for the game, me being a lousy debater etc.) so again, I will skip past it.

You constantly cite your Irvine argument, even after you admit that it is not the same thing as a theory which has ‘limited’ support. Why then do you keep with this argument if it only ends up hurting you? The entire notion is completely erroneous, and if you really want to insist on the ‘plausibility’ that Irvine has a sex-change in the future, then go ahead and cite some evidence or logical support in favor of this supposition. R=U has already ‘copious’ amounts, huge amounts actually, of justifiable in-game and logical evidence to be considered by many quite probably, plausible, and possible. And by continuing to cite your Irvine idea as an example for ideas pulled out of thin air, then it is in fact, nothing more than a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. which is set up so that it can be knocked down quite easily.

Once again you deliberately skip the very think that you are asking me to provide: in-game evidence. You’ve already lost long before, and by skipping over more of my posts you are confirming that you cannot hold a solid, logical debate. Keep skipping all you want, it just makes my theories stronger while your ideas are left defenseless against unchallenged logic and evidence within the game.

Again, I was so apalled at this statement that I couldn't help myself commenting. How many times do I have to mention that I started off supporting the R=U theory? I was even more die-hard than you, if I may say so myself. Your patronising comment only serves to weaken your stance; please do not judge me unless you actually know anything about me.

You have no idea how ‘die-hard’ of a supporter I really am of the R=U theory, so you are once again assuming something without probably justification. Throughout this entire post, you have written in such a condescending and patronizing tone that I find it quite quizzical that you would now complain about me doing the same. You must understand that when you keep repeating yourself, asking for in-game evidence and what-not, and then admit to skipping over my posts, you lose not only credibility but also the entire argument. Also, it is a good idea to quote what I have stated above your response so I don’t have to search my original post to locate exactly what you are talking about.

What I need to know about you has been made apparent in your arguments, therefore I do not see why you should get upset if someone is judging you based on what you have written. You wrote it, right? Nobody else came here and started ignoring logic and valid posts in favor of constantly repeating themselves- therefore I judge based on what is available.

Really? I could have sworn I only saw flawed arguments, or logic based on flawed assumptions, or ingame examples not at all relevant to ascertaining the validity of the theory.

You saw what you wanted to see because you are bent on defending your point of view with an unbending “absolute plausibility,” as you yourself put it. My arguments were all logically supported, and the in-game evidence was related greatly in support of R=U. How can you even make such a general statement about my arguments when you have admitted to skipping over a good deal of them simply because you thought they were the same as something else I had written?

Excuse me? You are kidding right? You do realise that both your post, and my FAQ are perfectly visible to the public right? You are honestly claiming that your last post was full of the same hints I have dissected in the FAQ? Ok, then please quote yourself referring to the following hints:

1) Rinoa and Ultimecia both having wings.
2) Ultimecias words during the final battle.
3) Rinoas allusing to wanting time to stand still on the Ragnarok.
4) The location of Ultimecias castle.
5) The possibility of Ultimecias name really being Artemisia.
6) The possible similarity between Rinoa and Ultimecias faces.
7) Ultimecia having Griever.
8) The Japanese instruction booklet referring to Rinoa becoming "warped".

How on earth you can critisice ME for somehow not noticing that your last post referred to all of these, when in fact it referred to none of them, is appalling. Did you even look at the FAQ before stating that?

From the 8 points above that you mentioned, I have already discussed at least a few of them in this post and in other posts, but since you admitted to skipping over a good deal of what I wrote, you can’t know for sure which ones I discussed and which ones I didn’t. I’ll be frank with you and spare you searching through the old posts: I knew of all of those points but I only made reference to about 3, so if I led you to believe that I addressed all 8, then that is not the case. Regardless, I did not think that these points were really much of anything too special- they all seem to be superficial and would not really sway anyone to believing that Rinoa is or isn’t Ultimecia. That is why I relied primarily on my own logical and in-game support, regarding the scenario of how Rinoa can become Ultimecia in the future.

I think you’re getting a little bit too agitated over here. I already explained to you that I had not referred to all of them, and if you believed this, then you are mistaken. I always meant to say that I was aware of all of those points, and since I knew that you already knew them, what was the point of listing them as evidence here simply for you to knock them down with clichéd and prepared responses? That is why I relied on my own logical and in-game support, which I managed to support against your arguments.

Please, do yourself a favour and read through the R=U part of the FAQ before responding further. Because those are the types of hints that have been missing in your posts, and your claim that they're really hiding there in the blank spaces of your post is quite frankly ridiculous.

I have already addressed this above. The hints you mentioned are superficial, and even though I did know about them, I was not about to throw them here so you can spout off prepared responses against them. Frankly, all those ‘hints’ combined would not have nearly enough power to significantly effect someone’s opinions that Rinoa is or is not Ultimecia. That is why I resorted to my own logical and in-game references, which proved to be much more effective against you.

No she does not. She has several 'minor errors' (the idea that a sorceress gets potential powers at 5 is pulled out of thin air), flawed logic and simply overly complex, bad ideas. But I refuse to let this turn into a sub-debate about her FAQ. I'll only respond to whatever of her stuff which you directly use in this argument.

Well, this point is now irrelevant. I was simply discussing the possible peculiarities regarding sorceresses. And besides, I never made the original argument- it was falsehead and I think you’ll agree that her plot analysis, as it stands, does have flaws in it, although her general support of Rinoa = Ultimecia still holds.

In all the popular science books I have read by Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene for one. And no offense, I'll put a wee bit more trust in them than in you.

I never stated that you should trust me over them. I also never stated that I was a physicist. I said that I was majoring in physics, and both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking purport certain possibilities for time travel. As soon as I can reference the book, I’ll be happy to show it to you so you can see exactly what I am talking about.

You do realise that the theory of relativity only enables timetravelling to the future (in theory that is) and not the past right? I assumed that since the question here is travelling to the past and not the future (how exactly you thought Rinoa migh get hold of a faster than light vehicle I won't ask) it was irrelevant. If you want to come across as a superior physics expert, you might want to start off actually making relevant points.

Further, you have no idea what I do and do not know, and with this example, you only demonstrated your own lacking knowledge on the issue, not mine.

I am very well aware that Einstein’s theory of relativity only allows permits time travel in the future, but you explicitly stated that scientists do not consider time travel to be possible. We were talking about time travel in general, and my making such a statement, it is in fact your ignorance which has been betrayed, not mine. I do not know exactly how much you know on the subject, but you do once again acquire the mark of hypocrisy by reversing your position from your previous post. Before you stated that scientists do not support time travel, but now you back-pedal by stating that they only support time-travel in to the future.

Secondly, if I ever came across a ‘superior physics expert,’ such as my professors, I would not start making relevant points about a Final Fantasy game which they probably have no interest in. I never implied that Rinoa would acquire a faster-than-light-speed vehicle. I was merely remarking on time travel as a concept since you falsely stated that time travel in our universe is considered impossible.

Given your apparent admiration for falseheads FAQ, one would think you had actually read it properly. The reason I stated "quantum dynamics" is because that is what falsehead does to intitiate the very argument you claim is quite well done in theory. She says, and I quote: "For example, current Quantum Theory posits that its IS in fact possible to go back in time and kill your own grandfather and still exist to do so.”

So which is it? If you say I am mistaken, you just stated that it was in fact quite logical and good, bringing to question your knowledge of both physics and falseheads FAQ. If I am correct here, you still stated that I was wrong. Honestly, I'm getting a bit confused here.

Apparent admiration of falsehead’s FAQ? Lol, where did you get that from? I was citing a third party that I thought you would be familiar with, but I never stated that had an ‘admiration’ for her FAQ. Firstly, quantum theory is not the same as quantum dynamics, and secondly, I have already conceded to the fact that falsehead has errors in her plot analysis. Therefore, since you viciously attacked her premise about R=U, why then would you also use her paper to validate a point you wanted to make? Quantum theory has little to do, as far as I know, with actual theory of time travel. If you admonish someone’s work as full of errors, why would you use it as a defense or source for your own statements, especially when you pick false statements?

This is interesting. You think that falseheads time theories are good, yet they automatically assume that the FF8 Universe is identical to ours (by introduing real life concepts of quantum dynamics, or whatever it really is...). Now you shout at me for doing the same, even though one of the very things I disliked about falseheads FAQ was this very same fact? I don't know whether to laugh or cry!



Sorry to burst your bubble, but I already knew of the scenario long before this.

Actually, I never assumed that the FFVIII universe was identical to ours. This is something that you assumed and I responded by asking you why you would compare our universe with FFVIII’s universe so carelessly. I never introduced quantum dynamics- this was a notion that you yourself introduced when you were writing about time travel. Why would state that I introduced it? The rest of your argument in the above quote is quite preposterous, since you ascribe to me two things that I did not do: I did not assume the FFVIII universe was identical to ours and I did not introduce quantum dynamics into the argument. Both of these were introduced and supported by yourself, and if you look at the previous posts, you’ll see where exactly you wrote such a thing.

Lastly, if you have heard of my theory, then that’s fine. I have no doubts that other people have developed such a theory as well, seeing how it is very possible and plausible to be true in regards to Rinoa being Ultimecia.

----

I'm done with this post now. I'm sick of repeating myself, sick of your mudslinging, and sicker yet to find you guilty of all the things you accuse me of. I'm going to bed now, and quite frankly, I kind of don't hope I have to go through another stint like this. Please though, before replying at all, read through the FAQ I linked to thoroughly, ok?

PS: Sorry if any gross mistakes have been made in this post, because it's long as hell, and I sure as hell aren't going to reread it all now.

I am only responding to your posts as nicely as I can, and so far I have managed to maintain my logical position on how exactly Rinoa is Ultimecia.You yourself admitted to skipping over much of what I wrote, so perhaps this was what caused you to keep asking me to post things that I had already posted and defended logically.

I have no recollection of being guilty of the transgressions I accused you of, and I also want to remind you that my original purpose in this argument was not to prove the Rinoa is Ultimecia, but to make that theory plausible, possible, and even probable. Therefore, Ultimecia’s real name is Rinoa, is it turns out that Rinoa becomes Ultimecia.

I have already read through all the FAQ’s that are on the internet, and I have addressed your FAQ up above. The facts remain that through logic and in-game evidence, the plausibility, possibility, and probability of Rinoa being Ultimecia is greatly supported.

-LYCHON

[Sir Bahamut]

Any kind of petty squabble was purposely initiated by yourself, and therefore you are again demonstrating your ‘unbending hypocrisy’ by continuing the charade. Your opinions and character are actually completely irrelevant to me when it comes to the validity of the R=U theory, so relax.

"Nu-uh, you started it!"

This is what I was talking about. I deliberately stayed clear of anything not directly relating to R=U (ie. my unbending character etc.) because I didn't want this to turn into a "you started it" thing. I reacted because you completely ignored this and proceeded to claim that I must surely have conceded by choosing not to comment on your accusations of my character, and guess what, you just started a "you started it" debate. Tell you what, if it makes you concentrate more on the R=U theory than my unbending personality, then by all means, stick with your claim that I started it, and I won't disagree.

One thing though: if my character is so unimportant to you, I find it odd that references to me being unbending, hypocritical, narrowminded, a poor 'dialectical' debater, and incapable of enjoying FF8 have only increased with your latest posts.

I have never stated that your inability to argue hindered any of my attempts; on the contrary, it made my conclusions and approach altogether easier.

Maybe I misread this quote of yours then: "it is really difficult to carry on an intelligent and logical argument if you ignore the points of the person you are arguing with". Perhaps you didn't mean what I assumed it to mean though. I am perfectly willing, unbending as I am, to admit to making mistakes in huge arguments like this, after all.

By arguing false logic and assumptions, you have set up a myriad of fragile arguments which you purport to defend as ‘plausible absolutes.’ On top of all this, you simultaneously admit that definitude cannot be claimed by both sides, yet you fail to see the hypocrisy.

I honestly don't know how I am supposed to respond to this, considering that you said the same thing in my last post, which I proceeded to explain was taken out of context. Do I really have to repeat it once more? One last try:

What you call 'hypocrisy' is in fact a necessary assumption in any 'dialectical argument'. Please do not yet again mistake this as saying that hypocrisy is essential in logic. It is saying that what YOU call hypocrisy (ie. being able to rule out various possible scenarios as not valid despite no exact definitude existing) is necessary. If not, we would get into a logical quagmire. I could argue that pink elephants cause gravity, and without any such demands placed on valid theories, I could go ahead and maintain the truth of my theory. If you said it was ridiculous, I could merely respond "You don't know perfectly for sure, do you?" and that would be that. Similarly, in FF8, we do not know perfectly for sure what will happen after the game has ended, but that does not mean we can thus entertain any theory possible to conceive of. Theories must be judged.

Please do not misread me yet again and take this as saying that R=U is equivalent to pink elephants causing gravity. The pink elephants are only meant as an example of why we must be able to judge the validity of theories, including the R=U theory. If we did not do so, my Irvine theory (do you finally see why I used this example now?) would be just as possible as your R=U scenario, even though the Irvine theory is obviously complete bull[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img].

For someone so keen on using the word "dialectical", you should surely know that such a "hypocritical" (in your words, that is) assumption is absolutely essential if any sort of meaningful discussion is to be held. Unless you are the kind of person who might spend hours defending the possibility of the pink elephants?

Well, you may find it fun to put words into other people’s mouth’s, but I don’t.

I'm sorry if you feel I have put words into your mouth in this argument. As mentioned, I make mistakes, being human and all. But honestly, do you really think I am the only one here who has made any mistakes?

I never stated anything to be specifically ‘vital’ to my arguments- this is something you have attempted to do.

I'm sorry, but it seems my exaggerated comment (a common tool in debates of any kind) of "vital arguments" came across as being completely literal. You must understand that I may during my posts use sarcasm, exaggerations and the likes to make a point. Maybe it was my fault for not making it clear enough, but you clearly read way too much into my statement there. It was by no means an attempt to words into your mouth. Please don't be so paranoid; I'm not that desperate at 'winning' the argument.

You have claimed to not know for sure whether Rinoa is Ultimecia, yet through your arguments it is apparent that you are definitely convinced that the two are not the same.

Explained above, and several times in my previous posts.

What’s more, I have shown that the exact opposite theory has greater validity than the negative suppositron: it is both plausible and possible that Rinoa is Ultimecia.

A bold claim indeed. Are you really saying that you think you have shown R=U to be more plausible than R =/= U? I think this will be touched upon more later on in the post though, so I won't go into it all here.

NOTE: This is not conceding to the argument, you know. It's just that there will probably be more fitting moments to get into it later on in this post.

That’s funny also how you begin your response with “Wow. Just wow.” I laughed a little actually. For someone who attempts to lead a civilized and intelligent argument, it is not the best way to start a response, is it? At least, I don’t think so.

No, I suppose I should rather go by your own standards and fill every other line (note: here is an example of an exaggeration like I mentioned before) with condescending comments about your "unbending personality" or your lack of any 'dialectical skills'. The worst thing is though that you're actually succeeding in dragging me down to the "you started it lol" thing which I hate. Sorry, but you aren't exactly making it easy on me.

NOTE: Great. My response to the first part of your post alone is already longer than most posts -__- *sigh*

You were attempting to end the argument because you did not wish to enter a serious debate, not because you thought the argument was ‘stupid.’

Nice of you to inform of me what I was thinking earlier, but I'm afraid this isn't exactly the first "serious debate" I've been in. It's not like you're coming with whole new angles on the R=U theory you know; I've been in the exact same discussion many times in the past. So let's please not go into my motives or what I was thinking at any time, ok?

If you thought the majority of the argument to be stupid, then why do you even continue to argue?

Again, I was exaggerating ever so slightly. Is this technique really new to you? Yes, a lot of points in your previous posts I thought irrelevant and stupid (eg. all references to my personality and the likes), but I kept arguing because there were actually proper points to adress.

All of my replies were in regards to different things and different areas of the R=U theory, and by failing to address those points, you have conceded those points. You can believe that by not addressing them you are simply ‘bypassing’ my arguments, but by not addressing the points, you are doing nothing else but refusing to acknowledge their validity.

I am perfectly aware that I have made some mistakes in terms of what I chose and did not choose to comment upon previously in this thread, and I have already apologised for that (funny how an unbending fellow like myself is the only one who has confessed to making mistakes so far). I do believe though that whatever relevants points I failed to address before, I will have answered in the span of this post and my last post. Again, I am sorry.

I, on the other hand, am not tired of this argument and my convictions that the R=U theory is plausible and probable have only been strengthened throughout this entire conversation. Your entire introduction into this post is made with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual R=U theory, so why are you even complaining about me doing the same in previous posts? You chose to continue this argument and have it degrade to the most basic of points, but even here you prove unbending and hypocritical. I hope this con be corrected so that we can get back on track and you can eventually see the plausibility and probability of Rinoa being Ultimecia. This is, after all, Final Fantasy, is it not?

I agree completely. I was stupid for responding to your personal criticism of me, and regret it now. I was tired yesterday and was simply unable to control my frustration of your repeated claims of me being unbending etc. and your claim that I must have conceded arguments to you. A poor excuse perhaps, but there you are.

I do not insist on anything, thank you very much, lol . I have only stated that if you do not wish to concede this argument, then you must address all the valid points of the person you are arguing with. You have resorted to respond only to selective quotes, while you ignore the rest. If you do not respond to my previous posts in my previous quotes, as you should have done in your posts immediately following the quotes in question, then this is a concession of your position.

And again, I point out that I already have apologised for failing to address all the relevant points of your previous post. I kind of hoped you would be big enough to accept the apology and move on, but I have been dissapointed so far, I must admit. Probably because I am such a poor debater compared to yourself, I suppose.

It really makes no difference to me, because you never really offered one logical or in-game citation which significantly shook or altered the R=U theory. The only thing that you have done is contradicted yourself by stating that neither side can claim definitude, and then turning around and stating with ‘plausible absoluteness’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

Adressed earlier.

Now, from the quotes that you have addressed, I hope that there is at least something which addresses the actual topic of R=U, and doesn’t continue this ‘petty squabble.’

I'll give you one thing; you are an expert at provoking. I had to take my dog for a long walk before being able to ignore this obvious bait.

The persecution of sorceresses in Rinoa’s time, following Ultimecia’s time compression, becomes to great. All sorceresses are tracked down and are either mercilessly killed or they are locked away in stasis. Given Rinoa’s connections (Squall, and Laguna- President of Esthat), Rinoa is not killed but spared only to be once again taken to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, and Squall is met with an insurmountable force when he tries to free her. This time, there are too many people in the world who fear the possibility of Ultimecia coming into existence, so therefore Squall and company are unable to free Rinoa, try as they may.

Interesting. Yet considering that Ultimecia lives long after the game has ended, and thus can't be assumed to have even been born yet (the people in FF8 obviously not being familiar with the R=U theory), I can't see how people can see Ultimecias future birth as a reason to seal up a sorceress born long before Ultimecias era (ie. Rinoa). So that obviously doesn't work.

You can, of course, still argue that people feared sorceresses in general, and thus demanded to have Rinoa sealed. Although Rinoa was not nearly well known to the public as a sorceress by the end of the game, and had protection in very high places, you could of course conceive of a scenario in which the pressure from the people overcomes all this and seals away Rinoa. Does the fact that one might conceive of such a scenario make it plausible though? I think I'll get back to that later on, if you don't mind.

So there you have it: a perfectly logical justification which utterly destroys your above argument. Actually, your argument above is not really any kind of argument. It is just a series of questions which I have all answered. If this is what you call a ‘breakdown’ of my defenses, then I hate to see what you call a ‘build-up.’

Ignoring your pointless and arrogant discussion about whether or not my "questions" can be labelled arguments or not, I will agree to this; it is possible to conceive of a scenario in which Rinoa can reach Ultimecias era despite not having extended lifespan. Still, I don't think it's quite time to discuss why this doesn't suddenly make the theory highly plausible.

Secondly, even I did not address your fragile attempt to breakdown my supposition of Rinoa being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, it still does not by any means disprove the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia through this way.

It doesn't discard the possibility, sure, I said as much above. It does, however, weaken the argument, because the more questions that have to be answered (answers that are inherently based on the uncertainty of what happens after the game ends mind you), the less plausible the theory becomes. I'll get back to this, but you must surely agree that if there are two contesting theories, the one which requires the least assumptions and relies the least on uncertainties after the game has ended is the best one, no?

And thirdly, since Ultimecia has forever altered the past by achieving time compression, Rinoa may never actually become her, even though she in fact was on a course to become Ultimecia before Ultimecia started interfering with Rinoa’s time.

Now this is something I admit I should have dealt more severely with earlier, and which I will deal full attention now.

You frequently use this in your latest post as an argument as to the lack of hints pointing towards Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. You say that it may not appear that Rinoa will become Ultimecia because Ultimecia (in fact Rinoa) has tampered with the past, and use this as a defense for the R=U theory. But do you not see how ridiculous this is? This is, to be honest, absurd. Pause to consider exactly what you are saying:

Assume Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. Since Ultimecia tampers with time, all traces of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia may be gone, so the lack of support/hints for R=U does not render the theory invalid.

You have no other defense for the lack of support for the theory other than that Ultimecia tampered with time, so the Rinoa we play may not actually become Ultimecia, even though she did become her before time was tampered with. This is nothing more than a clever way of avoiding the fact that the game does not in any way hint towards R=U. You simply give a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, state that Ultimecia messed with time to remove all evidence of this happening, and still contest that it is highly plausible? Surely you must see the absurdity of the argument! By the same argument, I could seriously back up my absurd Irvine theory by stating that he got a sex-change, became Ultimecia, but then tampered with the past so that Irvine's female tendencies were wiped from the game. How would you be able to refute it?

Furthermore, the game actually implies that the past cannot be changed at all. Recall that Ellone says "You can't change the past", that Squall also learned this the hard way trying to save Rinoa, and that the game is literally littered with references to fate ruling supreme in the game. Everything indicates that time is set in stone in FF8 (you said you read the FAQ I linked to you, so you should be familiar with the full arguments supporting this). But that is really secondary in comparison to the absurdity of the way you use changing the past to back up R=U.

Finally, Ultimecia never actually achieves time compression. She begins it, yes, but had she finished it, it would have been game over, as only Ultimecia can exist in TC.

But given the in-game evidence, and the logical conclusions based on time manipulation, we can see that it is both very possible and very possible that Rinoa can become Ultimecia in Final Fantasy VIII.

Possible in theory? Yes. Can it be conceived of? Yes. But that doesn't matter, because nothing in the game directly indicates it (your so-called support I will deal with when it pops up later in this post). You even have to go so far as to embrace changing the past to explain away this. If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is.

Well, we are still talking about Final Fantasy, are we not? This is not your reality where you dictate what is imaginative and what is not.

I agree. All ideas must be judged against what the game tells us, not by what I say.

If Squall is killed in an attempt to rescue an imprisoned Rinoa (as I explained above), then he may have imprinted his psychological identity to the concept of Griever, a concept which he conceived in his mind. This psychological imprint is then brought into existence by Ultimecia (aka Rinoa) when she is met with opponents, and thus we have Griever. And this concept he may have conceived with his dying breath, to uphold his promise that he will protect Rinoa and be her knight, no matter what.

May he really? I suppose it doesn't matter that such a process of psychologically imprinting Griever is never alluded to in the game, or anywhere but your own imagination then? The concept 'works' sure, but I can think of a million other concepts that work and yet are not based on what the game tells us. So please, explain how you extracted this idea from the game.

Now, perhaps if you had actually paid closer attention to my previous posts, you would have noticed this logical justification and how it is linked to the accepted definition of Griever.

Oh really? The accepted definition of Griever is that he is created in the final battle from an image in Squall's head. You are stating that Squall made some sort of pseudo-scientific psychological imprint of Griever at death, which somehow stuck about all until Rinoa was released from her seal, when she used it to make Griever. There are similarities, but calling it logically justified based on the accepted definition is a far cry.

Before you start condescendingly questioning my logic, perhaps you should get your own validations in order so that they are not broken down even further into a state of utter chaos. I am starting to doubt that you have actually even finished the game since you seem to be quoting so many clichéd and known sources.

Again, very nice, provocative bait. I'll refrain this time too though, I'm afraid.

By achieving time compression, she has altered Squall and Rinoa’s time, therefore Griever has not yet had a change to become just a psychological remnant of Squall, but Griever is still inside Squall. If Ultimecia had not interfered with Rinoa and Squall’s time, then the natural events cycle would have naturally produced Rinoa as Ultimecia, and possibly Squall into Griever as her knight. But Ultimecia interferes through time compression, and since she obviously already has knowledge of Griever, she extracts Griever from Squall as a means to help her battle against SeeDs who have come to destroy her.

Again you use this absurd logic to explain why your ideas are not actually supported by the game at all. I already (hopefully) explained why such logic is ridiculous, and in no way makes for a plausible explanation (ie. because it literally means any case could be argued, seeing as any discrepancies with what we see in the game can be explained by altering of time, which is ludicrous).

Also, quoting the Japanese version of the game is probably not the best way to go if you want to have greater support of your argument.

Why on earth not? Are you saying that the original script by the authors of FF8 is less valid then a translated version?

I do not remember the exact words of Ultimecia when it came to that last scene, but I do recall that they were somehow not exactly as you quote them.

Excuse me? Since it was actually I and the co-authors of the FAQ referred to who first obtained this translation and brought it to this forum, I'm afraid I have difficulties believing that I somehow screwed up. So I'm afraid you'll have to do better than say something like that in order to convince me here.

Therefore, as you can see, when the element of time manipulation is brought into the mix, it can be seen that Griever may be used as a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia, and hence makes a logical justification of the entire scenario.

But as explained, your logic is ridiculous. Nothing in the game shows Griever to be a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia. All you have done is conceive of a way in which Griever COULD be a link, and then used the extremely weak argument that tampering with time is what prevents anything in the game from actually making this clear. Yet you are still bold enough to say it is not your imagination at work here, but the game itself?

And remember, I have never stated that Rinoa is definitely Ultimecia; I only wanted to establish the plausibility and possibility of such an event, and so far I have not only been winning due to logical and in-game proof, but I have also been winning because you consistently fail to address my quotes from my posts accurately and sufficiently. Let’s see what’s next.

In-game proof? Would that be the same proof you have to explain the lack of due to time-tampering? All you have done is create a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. That scenario is not backed up by anything in the game. The fact that the people might overwhelm Squall and Laguna and demand Rinoa being sealed away is not actually hinted at in the game. It is merely a possibility you have conceived of. The link with Griever you have more or less admitted doesn't exist (and blame it on time-tampering at that). What else is there then supporting the scenario you have devised? Not a damn thing. Yes, the fact that the scenario exists makes it possible in theory, but for all purposes and intents, you have in no way demonstrated how it is highly plausible. Really, simply the fact that you have to resort to time-tampering as an explanation should be more than enough to demonstrate how lacking your scenario is.

Quote by quote responses is something crucial, especially in this argument. It’s not a very intelligent tactic to avoid responding to a quote by claiming that such a response will result in ‘complications.’ We are arguing something which is already quite complicated here, and if you want to make any headway in your position instead of quarreling pointlessly, then I recommend you reconsider my previous quotes which you conceded on.

Crucial eh? So you do, actually, find it crucial that I should respond to all your quotes about me being unbending and not getting enjoyment from FF8? Funny, I thought you said in the beginning that this was not the case. In any case, I'll avoid the obvious flamebait yet again.

I don’t have to call anything ‘evidence’ and neither do you.

"Therefore, as you can see, there is evidence in the game to draw a conclusion of possibility and plausibility"

I suppose I must have misread your statement here then...

The point is that I have already explained the idea of why Laguna or Squall could have been powerless to allow Rinoa to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial.

The point is that this is not enough. Simply conceiving of a possible scenario does in no way make it plausible or valid in any way. That is what the Irvine theory was meant to demonstrate. You also have to show how it is firmly supported by the game, yet so far, all links you have made between Rinoa and Ultimecia rely on suspect ideas and time-tampering, hardly grounds for a good argument.

. Surely you have heard of the witch hunts and communist panics and Jewish persecutions which have occurred in our own world, right? The same paranoia would be exponentially greater if a sorceress from the future achieved time compression in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. You are too inept in the principles of sociology to understand this right now, but such an intense persecution may have resulted in a quasi-mob mentality to take control over the planet of Final Fantasy VIII. In such an event, even Laguna, President of Esthar, and Squall, sworn protector of Rinoa, may not have been able to save Rinoa from being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial. But, through Laguna’s acquaintance, Rinoa avoids being martyred due to the panic which follows time compression by Ultimecia. I hope you understand this point, since I have repeated here after already stating it above.

Actually, I'm afraid I'm far too inept at sociology right now to understand a word you have said here. Could you please write it out in words I can understand, preferably avoiding such difficult words as "acquaintance". Thanks.

I am not necessarily referring to the first time when people attempted to imprison Rinoa in the Sorceress Memorial, so nothing ‘slipped passed me,’ but nice try.

Um, you literally said "Also, remember that Esthar already attempted to place Rinoa in a sorceress prison".

By achieving influence in Rinoa and Squall’s time period, Ultimecia has forever altered the course of events in their time period, and therefore Rinoa is saved by Squall before she gets imprisoned into the sorceress memorial. This, however, may not be the only time that people attempt to imprison Rinoa into the sorceress memorial. And since Ultimecia may have forever altered the time line of Squall and Rinoa’s time, it may turn out that Rinoa now will never actually become Ultimecia. This does not mean, however, that Rinoa wasn’t the same Ultimecia as the one who compressed time.

Again, your entire argument boils down to "Ultimecia might be Rinoa, she just tampered with time to remove all signs of this happening". If that is your idea of a good argument, I must question who taught you the concept of 'dialectical arguments'.

Also, where do you get your fact that Ultimecia is created by sorceress persecution?

From the obvious fact that history would be recorded along with my inept understanding of sociology. Since you claimed to have read my FAQ, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with my own view here. Maybe it's been a while since you last read it?

Since much of Ultimecia’s history cannot be substantiated as fact by the game, it is unwise to imply anything as ‘fact’ when speaking of her.

And where exactly in that statement did I mention 'facts' in any way?

I have never stated that the R=U theory works because Ultimecia comes into being because she is embittered over sorceress persecution. But the entire R=U theory is greatly supported by such a supposition, not greatly contradicted. If Rinoa ever was put into the stasis of the Sorceress Memorial, and eventually broke free, she may eventually become embittered over the constant persecution of sorceresses, and become Ultimecia.

True, but the idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia, a sorceress born in the future and persecuted for being a sorceress is far more plausible than R=U, simply because it requires less assumptions and far out arguments (like time-tampering etc.). You cannot honestly think that R=U, a theory which requires such huge debates as this, to be more plausible than the simple idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia? The size of this post alone should make that sound a little silly...

The bolded section of my previous post actually makes a strongly convincing case. If you refuse to see the logical defense for, then that is because of your inflexible close-mindedness. If you want to keep a certain image of Final Fantasy VIII in your mind by not considering logical probability or possibility, then by all means, continue to do so. I have already disproved all of your attempted ‘break downs’ of my arguments, and have strengthened these arguments to new heights.

Really convincing case, eh? Let's recap exactly what you are saying:

- After the game ended, knowledge that a sorceress nearly compressed all of time leaked to the public, who were infuriated, and demanded all sorceresses to be rounded up and killed.
- Rinoa, knowing people in high places, was spared, and only sealed up.
Squall was probably killed trying to save her. Laguna had to bow down due to politics.
- Rinoa is somehow released from her seal, grows bitter at her fate, and becomes Ultimecia.

In-game support for any of this happening: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time.
In-game events/quotes hinting at Ultimecia being Rinoa: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time and/or because Square wanted to be really, really, really subtle about it.

I'm sorry, but that hardly warrants a description as a "strongly convincing case". If I need to explain why(and I have attempted to in this post), you shouldn't even be having this argument to begin with.

I offered plenty of in-game examples in support of logical probability and possibility: The persecution of sorceresses;

Your idea of the persecution of sorceresses straight after the game ends is only one possible scenario backed up by nothing in the game. It could have taken much longer for anger to build up; the public might not find out that Rinoa is a sorceress; Laguna and Squall may be able to keep the lid on the anger.

Your idea does make for a conceivable R=U scenario, but on it's own, it is not nearly enough to make a case for something as controversial as R=U.

the manifestation of Griever from Squall’s mind

Except as explained earlier, you practically admitted that this was not backed up by the game when you relied on time-tampering to explain how it can work. Nothing in the game backs it up, it is only your imagination. Your claim that it "might have happened but Ultimecia tampered with time" is irrelevant. Anything could have happened if we go by that, including as mention, the Irvine being Ultimecia 'theory'.

the event of time compression which opens up the entire game to time manipulation

As explained though, your dependance on time-tampering for R=U to work only serves to weaken your argument, not strengthen it. Furthermore, the game itself indicates that time is set in stone, and since TC was never fully completed, your assumption that Ultimecia's intitiating of it caused the past to alter is thus completely unfounded.

the attempted imprisonment of Rinoa in the Soreceress Memorial

...in which she is rescued by Squall. The fact that Rinoa was initially sealed away due to the threat of Ultimecia possessing her, and then rescued, does in no way imply that after the game has ended, they'll suddenly rush to seal her up again. The two are unrelated.

and many more.

Indulge.

I have so far come up with plenty of logical and in-game evidence that Rinoa is actually Ultimecia, and it is perhaps an idea which the authors of the game wanted to make much more subtle than the idea of Squall being Laguna’s father.

Perhaps. But do you honestly think that Square decided to add some extremely, subtle, not alluded to at all, secret plot-twist only noticeable by a very elite few? Not only is that counter to Square's record when it comes to storylines, it would be bad for business, quite frankly. In FF games, Square try and tell a story. They leave some stuff for discussion, sure, but hardly such unfounded things as R=U.

Besides, you do not even know for sure that Laguna is Squall’s father, so you are once again demonstrating that peculiar ‘tunnel vision’ when you discuss a game such as Final Fantasy VIII.

If you are honestly going to seriously uphold the notion that Laguna may not be Squall's father, I'm leaving the debate, because in that case there is clearly no point trying to convince you.

Like I stated above, the game leaves so many questions unanswered, that it may have been deliberately made in such a way so that the idea of Rinoa = Ultimecia remains a very subtle, barely hinted idea.

Unfounded though. Sounds to me like you are saying Square made subtle hints so as to enable the R=U theory more than that the R=U is enabled by subtle hints.

By continually citing the poor argument of Irvine getting a sex-change, and comparing it to the R=U theory, you are portraying ignorance, not logic.

Considering that you STILL have not understood the meaning of the Irvine theory, I find it amusing that you can accuse me of ignorance.

Since you keep mentioning it, you should have something to back it up. It is by no means a proper comparison which the R=U theory, since the R=U theory simply has so much more in-game and logical support.

Oh really? But using the same logic you do, I can claim that Irvine got a sex-change, became a sorceress, became persecuted and became Ultimecia, and then through tampering with time removed all evidence of his female tendencies in the game. The R=U theory has no real backing (see above responses to the support you mentioned), and you have even admitted that the hints are incredibly tiny and subtle at best. I really don't see where the leap "logical and in-game support" comes from.

If you fail to see the evidence and support of the R=U theory, then I am not about to reeducate you in the arts of dialectics and open-mindedness.

Particularly nice flamebait. I like the touch about you re-educating me. It really makes you appear as superior in' the art of dialectics'. Your claim of my lack of open-mindedness is particularly nice. I like the way you completely ignored the fact that I stated more than once that I used to be exactly like you, but changed my mind after years of arguing. Still, I guess you're only open-minded if you refuse to back down from an idea, eh?

I’m not about to replay the game so I can compile every piece of evidence of action and speech by the characters which support the R=U theory. How about this? Go online and check out what has already been written! Quite a concept, huh? Lol, of course you’re familiar with the commonly known statements of Rinoa when she says that “she doesn’t want the future.” But this is just the surface of the plethora of in-game quotes and evidence which can logically be defended as supporting the concept of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Notice that while you claim here there is a "plethora" of ingame quotes and evidence supporting the idea, you later admit that all 9 such hints I listed were not very good. I'll comment more on this later when it pops up then, if you don't mind.

Furthermore, for a person who seems to have difficulties comprehending logic, I would merely be wasting my time if I actually went to ‘compile’ all the in-game references to the R=U theory.

I liked your last flamebait better =/

I think over the years, you’ve somehow acquired a rather big ‘ego,’ especially in regards to your close-minded and stubborn position in the game of Final Fantasy VIII.

This coming from the person who ended an argument with "Damn I'm good! lol".

Here’s an idea for you good sir: how about you take the time and compile all of the in-game evidence that supports Rinoa not being Ultimecia? You seem to be so very sure of this ‘fact,’ despite claiming to support that neither side of the argument can claim definitude. So go off and replay the game or scour the internet; let me know everything you find which you believe satisfactorily answer the questions left by the game and that go against the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory.

I already did; hence the FAQ I referred you to. Granted, you won't find a list of "these hints/events in the game directly go against R=U". Two reasons for that:

1) Since the game doesn't actually support R=U in any way, it is impossible to find arguments either way. No arguments in the game directly point to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, and similarly, nothing can be found which directly goes against Ultimecia. This simply is due to the fact that Square obviously never planned the R=U theory to be part of the game.

2) I am not the one defending a controversial theory. It is your job to show why the R=U theory makes perfect sense and is backed up by the game, not my job to show you why it doesn't fit in. I am supporting the common-sense view (ie. Ultimecia is Ultimecia). If you want to come here with a theory not immediately obvious in the game, it is your job to make it valid, not my job to refute it. If all your arguments are refuted, the theory is invalid.

For someone so obviously an expert in the 'dialectical art', I find it surprising that you are not even aware of this basic fact.

I do not need to know anything specific about your past. I can already conclude through your false method of argument that you are lacking in the imperative areas of dialectical thinking.

Don't forget my ineptness at sociology!

No part of your post was taken out of context. (Here you once again become a hypocrite since you already admitted that you bypassed some of my arguments in a previous post, thereby taking part of my post ‘entirely out of context’).

Nice of you to completely ignore my repeated apologies. And yes, you did take parts of my post out of context, which I already demonstrated. Your inability to point out exactly why it was not taken out of context only confirms this.

Theories, especially theories in a game with so many questions such as Final Fantasy VIII, will not be judged by one standard. And if they are judged by only one statement, it most definitely should not be yours since you show a lacking for open-mindedness and an affinity for hypocrisy, at least in my opinion. The R=U theory definitely has enough in-game support and logical support to be substantiated, therefore you probably shouldn’t classify it with the concept of pink elephants or of Irvine getting a sex change.

Never implied that I was the supreme judge, now did I? I have repeatedly stated that the basis of any theory must be that it is rooted firmly in what the game tells us. Your dependance on time-tampering to explain away the lack of support confirms the weakness of your arguments.

As for Irvine and Pink Elephants, I have already explained why you are taking that out of context, and what I mean with those examples, but if you haven't already grasped it, I won't even bother repeating myself again.

Secondary, you have an equally difficult burden to prove to me that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.

As explained though, that is not the case at all. Rinoa NOT being Ultimecia is the simplest, straightforward, common-sense idea. R=U is a controversial theory which claims that the game is quite different from what it appears, and thus it is YOUR responsibility to convince me why it is valid, not my responsibility to explain why it cannot be. Again, this is a basic fact when it comes to new theories. When someone proposes a new, radical theory, that person must come with all arguments. It is not everyone elses job to jump up and try and contradict the theory.

I still await for you to even bring up one argument which contradicts the R=U theory, lol .

Commented on this earlier.

In fact, if Rinoa=Ultimecia is indeed true, it would tie up virtually every loose end in the game, and make perfect and flawless logical sense.

If Rinoa =/= Ultimecia, but Ultimecia = Ultimecia, all loose ends are tied up as well, and don't need the additional assumptions required to make R=U work. You seem to think that only R=U can explain all the "unanswered questions" in the game. You are quite mistaken. In the FAQ referred to, you will find a far more plausible theory of Ultimecias birth, one which does not require such weak arguments such as "time-tampering having altered everything!".

We are discussing the plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and I have logically shown that this scenario is most the likely the best scenario for answering the game’s unanswered questions.

Err, no you have not. Firstly, you have no even specified what exactly the unanswered questions in the game are, let alone explained why R=U is the best way to answer them. Please don't come with statements that are not actually true.

Your entire perception of the game seems to be warped: you start spouting off about clichés and unknown backgrounds. Seems to me your imagination is by no means deficient, but one main difference between your argument and mine is that you close your mind to possibility and plausibility, while mine remains open.

Criticising my personality does not help your argument, you know. My mind is far from closed (again, must I remind you that I used to be like you, and then changed my mind?), and you are only weakening your stance by continually bringing up my "unbending" personality.

such as when Rinoa commented on the impending future, a future which she may have gotten a glimpse of and realized that she in fact is Ultimecia.

She may have gotten a glimpse eh? That really is rock solid, isn't it? You don't think it's possible that Rinoa was simply talking about her powers eventually reaching Ultimecia (something she literally states in the Ragnarok at one point) and her immediate fear of being rejected as a sorceress? Saying that she glimpsed into the future and saw herself becoming Ultimecia is quite farfetched.

Therefore, you have once again yielded false logic when you cite the Ultimania guide as a reference, and the relation between Laguna and Squall does not necessarily have to serve as an example for proving the R=U theory. (Perhaps if you took a step back and looked at the situation with an open-mind, you might see what I am talking about. But then again, that’s just too much to hope for, isn’t it? )

False logic, eh? Yeah, sorry, I forgot that if anyone had first hand knowledge about what Square would and would not put into the Ultimania Guide, it's you. :rolleyes2 Sorry, but the logic you used to explain away the lack of R=U in the Ultimania was simply that Square obviously didn't want to reveal it all there and rather let us discuss it. What exactly is that based on? First hand knowledge on Square?

Sorry, but if it's a choice between looking at what Square directly tell us and what you think they purposefully avoided telling us, I'll go with Square any day.

Nice try in the end, there, by the way. I'll refrain, yet again though.

You now greatly err by asking me whether or not I thought Rinoa was Ultimecia when I finished the game. The answer is Yes- I did not read off the internet or from a magazine or hear it from anyone else- the idea was just obvious after I finished the game for a second time, and just to let you know, 2 out 6 people that I know who have played the game also came to the conclusion by themselves that is was possible and plausible that Rinoa was indeed Ultimecia.

Oh really? Well, sorry to say this, but you're a statistical freak, because of all the hundreds of people I've spoken to over the years, none have claimed that they thought it was obvious from the game. I guess Square really wanted to make it that subtle, huh?

But I think you forget, once again, that I never intended to prove that Ultimecia is indeed Rinoa- I merely wanted to show it plausible and possible. We obviously had an entirely different view of the game, and I will never see it your way, and you will never see it my way.

Probably true.

I have proven plenty, I have given plenty of hints, and my reasoning is justified with great reasoning and logic. I have provided my logical and in-game conclusions in previous posts which you have already admitted to have ignored, as well as in my quotes above. How about you start showing me evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia? I have disproved and shot down any kind of attempt you have made to fracture my arguments, so perhaps it is time you begin a different strategy. Like I stated above, I anxiously await your compilation of ‘hints’ and ‘logic’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. I’ve already shown you plenty of logic and evidence to which you have responded poorly, thus rendering my arguments even more valid and true. However, you yourself have failed to provide my with any of your own ‘hints’ or logic which prove that Ultimecia is not Rinoa. So far, you have merely responded to my own logic and in-game references, and yet here you claim that I have not listed any logic or in-game references. When you can learn to conduct a dialectical discussion without serious weaknesses, then perhaps you’ll be able to understand the conclusions and support behind R=U.

Answered all of this earlier.

I have already addressed all the above questions and proved them plausible and possible. I have cited the persecution of the sorceresses; I have cited that Griever comes out of Squall’s mind and I have related this to the combination of time manipulation and the fact that Squall swore to protect Rinoa; I have repeatedly told you that the possibility of Rinoa being in stasis can surely make it possible for her to become Ultimecia in future generations.

By asking me for specific examples, you only serve to embarrass yourself most excellently. “Pray tell”? Spare me, lol, and realize once again that if the authors of the game intended Rinoa to be Ultimecia, then it is purposely made very subtle, and therefore there is nothing that can be claimed with certain definitude, especially with all the questions let unanswered at the games end. You yourself have already agreed that neither side can claim any kind of absolute proof when arguing R=U, and then you went and perjured yourself by claiming an ‘absolute plausibility’ that Rinoa was not Ultimecia. I have addressed the questions in your above quote so many times, and proven their plausibility and possibility so many times, that I wonder if you simply do not understand my words. I try to use words of medium-level difficulty, so I doubt that this is really the problem.

You once again go around one of my main arguments: The events in the game are probably not the same events that would have led Rinoa to become Ultimecia in the future. Since Ultimecia achieved time compression, she has forever altered Squall’s and Rinoa’s time, and therefore Rinoa may never even become Ultimecia anymore. Therefore, there may no evidence even available in the game beyond what I have listed. (For individuals who look upon FFVIII with a closed mind find it difficult to comprehend what I have stated).

The only product of imagination I see here is your wonderfully barren imagination closing any and all possibility and plausibility off to you when it comes to answering the questions posed by Final Fantasy VIII. You again become a hypocrite here because previously you stated that the argument of Rinoa being Ultimecia could not be definitely argued on either side, but by patronizing me here, you imply that such a theory is definitely wrong. Lol, how will we ever get to a common ground? (By the way, didn’t you accuse my previously that of acting condescendingly towards you?)

Answered all earlier on. Oh, and thank you for being so gracious as to use words of "medium-level difficulty" when explaining me things. You know with my terrible skills at dialectical arguments and inept sociological skills at that, it can get quite hard for me to follow you sometimes.

Lol, if you do not understand the complexities of time manipulation, then perhaps you should not argue it.

Ouch. Nice one! I guess we can add an inability to grasp time manipulation to the list of my countless flaws (how on earth I managed to write that FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression I honestly don't know...).

It has not been pulled out of thin air at all and it is perfectly logical. The game already shows two time periods which may in fact be alternate timelines or even alternate universes.

What do you mean, they "may in fact be alternate timelines etc."? They may not be too. They may simply be the same timeline, just different locations on it. Nothing in the game indicates that multiple timelines are in play. It is an unncessary complication on your part based on nothing but your imagination. The fact that instead of actually supporting your claim with in-game events here, you go ahead and post an explanation of it (ignoring the fact that you admitted that my brief summary captured the essence). Is this really because you find me incapable of grasping your idea, which isn't nearly as complex as you think it is, or is it because the idea in fact ISN'T rooted in the game.

You cannot in any way offer any in-game examples which support your claim that multiple timelines are in action.

I hope you can understand this, because I have studied this idea in my college classes and have discussed it many times, and honestly, I am surprised at your shamelessness that you actually choose to argue time manipulation with me when you presented your lack of knowledge on the subject in your past post, lol .

Nah, I can't understand a word you're saying. And you're right, my FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression are obvious evidence of my inability to understand simple theories on time manipulation such as this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it for me though, I appreciate the effort.

I never relied on the evidence of others to prove my points. I only brought in one 3rd party reference just so I can add a reflection of my ideas. I did not need the plot analysis done by Sophie Ceshire, and I most certainly do not need your FAQ, which I have seen and have concluded that I have already disproved all the points in that flawed writing.

Nice of you to state that you think the FAQ is full of flaws without actually specifying any. I'll take it all the other's who read the FAQ and found no flaws were merely not as clever as you.

Actually, huge amounts of logical and in-game evidence, only deniable by a person whose defense foundations are being crumbled, and in a desperate attempt to salvage their remnants, they resort to stubbornness instead of admitting defeat.

Again, there is in no way "huge amounts". You mentioned no more than around 5 examples as support, and I have clearly demonstrated the flaws in them all.

Lastly, if you think this argument is going to be over with 2-3 hour posts, then you have vastly underestimated the complexity of the issue. You previously stated that the time issue in Final Fantasy VIII was much ‘less complex’ than I was making it out to be, but with the proof of R=U’s possibility and plausibility, I hope that you see that this is not the case.

R=U doesn't make the timeline more complex, it makes it less complex, by removing any intermediate links between Rinoa and Ultimecia. The compexity you speak of is only a result of the fact that you use overly complex, unfounded ideas such as alternate timelines to explain things, when everything can be explained in a much simpler way which doesn't assume such things as alternate timelines. Read my FAQ for more.

“Once again, we do not know the circumstances of Rinoa’s future. Another one of my theories, this one however a bit less supported in the game as the one I have placed in bold above: Rinoa may become Ultimecia and then somehow project her essence to successive generations in the future, waiting until she is powerful enough or until the circumstances are right for her to achieve time compression.

Just "a bit"? You are saying that "somehow", through some inexplicable mechanism not shown to exist in the game at all, Rinoa projects her "essence" into new sorceresses until she reaches Ultimecia. That's not at all in the game. It's merely a figment of your imagination.

You continue to skip over my posts, only to ask for information I have already supplied (as you just did above). That’s fine by me, just know that until you answer the posts that you have not answered as of yet, I consider this argument completely mine, and what I am doing here is merely trying to guide you into the light, so to speak, lol .

Guide me into the light? Mmm, very good one. I almost fell for that one, I have to admit.

No, your explanation of ‘hypocrisy’ being part of logic was pure malarkey, lol .

Using a word like "malarkey" doesn't excuse you from actually demonstrating in what way my explanation was gibberish.

You say that hypocrisy is not fundamental to logic, but then you say that hypocrisy is essential to logic. This is an oxymoron, so you have either unknowingly contradicted yourself here, or you are once again being hypocritical.

It was neither. I have repeatedly explained myself in this regard, and your inability to understand it is frankly, not my problem. Your repeated statements that I am being an idiot here, without actually looking at my argument at all only makes you appear the foolish one here.

You have no idea how ‘die-hard’ of a supporter I really am of the R=U theory, so you are once again assuming something without probably justification.

I agree, actually. You are far more 'die-hard' than I was. At least I was able to change my mind. Somehow I can't see you doing the same.

[quote]I’ll be frank with you and spare you searching through the old posts: I knew of all of those points but I only made reference to about 3, so if I led you to believe that I addressed all 8, then that is not the case.[/quote

You did say your post was "full of the same hints", so you must excuse me.

Regardless, I did not think that these points were really much of anything too special- they all seem to be superficial and would not really sway anyone to believing that Rinoa is or isn’t Ultimecia. That is why I relied primarily on my own logical and in-game support, regarding the scenario of how Rinoa can become Ultimecia in the future.

Yet without those 9 points on your side, your claim that there is a "plethora" of support for R=U seems rather ludicrous, considering you have cited at best 5 in-game examples or so, all of which are either flawed, based on something flawed, or have much more probable alternate explanations.

I think you’re getting a little bit too agitated over here. I already explained to you that I had not referred to all of them, and if you believed this, then you are mistaken.

Actually, you said your post was "full of them", and in fact only one out of nine was mentioned.

Frankly, all those ‘hints’ combined would not have nearly enough power to significantly effect someone’s opinions that Rinoa is or is not Ultimecia. That is why I resorted to my own logical and in-game references, which proved to be much more effective against you.

Blah blah, this has been said a million times before, and my response is the same (I'm really sick of typing right now, you see).

I never stated that you should trust me over them. I also never stated that I was a physicist. I said that I was majoring in physics, and both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking purport certain possibilities for time travel. As soon as I can reference the book, I’ll be happy to show it to you so you can see exactly what I am talking about.

See my edited last post for why exactly time-dilation is thought to not allow human beings to timetravel.

I am very well aware that Einstein’s theory of relativity only allows permits time travel in the future, but you explicitly stated that scientists do not consider time travel to be possible.

This is funny. I actually made a mistake when I said that theory of relativity discusses only travel to the future, and if you read over my edited post, you'll see I've apologised for that, and altered my point as such. Yet here, you say you are "well aware" of something I said which was a mistake? Time-dilation DOES talk about travel to the past, actually. Needless to say, your knowledge on time-travelling in modern physics sounds a bit suspect now, don't you think?

I never implied that Rinoa would acquire a faster-than-light-speed vehicle. I was merely remarking on time travel as a concept since you falsely stated that time travel in our universe is considered impossible.

Impossible for any object with mass that is (see my edited post).

Apparent admiration of falsehead’s FAQ? Lol, where did you get that from? I was citing a third party that I thought you would be familiar with, but I never stated that had an ‘admiration’ for her FAQ. Firstly, quantum theory is not the same as quantum dynamics, and secondly, I have already conceded to the fact that falsehead has errors in her plot analysis. Therefore, since you viciously attacked her premise about R=U, why then would you also use her paper to validate a point you wanted to make? Quantum theory has little to do, as far as I know, with actual theory of time travel. If you admonish someone’s work as full of errors, why would you use it as a defense or source for your own statements, especially when you pick false statements?

Quantum theory and quantum dynamics being two different things? Right.....

Anyway though, this is irrelevant to the R=U debate, and I was foolish to bring it up at all.

Actually, I never assumed that the FFVIII universe was identical to ours. This is something that you assumed and I responded by asking you why you would compare our universe with FFVIII’s universe so carelessly. I never introduced quantum dynamics- this was a notion that you yourself introduced when you were writing about time travel. Why would state that I introduced it? The rest of your argument in the above quote is quite preposterous, since you ascribe to me two things that I did not do: I did not assume the FFVIII universe was identical to ours and I did not introduce quantum dynamics into the argument. Both of these were introduced and supported by yourself, and if you look at the previous posts, you’ll see where exactly you wrote such a thing.

I didn't introduce that (I'm really starting to doubt if you have ever read my FAQ...), it was falsehead who did so. I brought that up then, because you stated that you thought it was "good in theory". It stands to reason then that you also approved of her use of quantum dynamics/theory (the difference is, I doubt, no more than semantical).

But again, this is irrelevant to R=U, and I'm sorry for bringing it up.

-------

There. I'm done. This is my last post here. I know I posed several questions for you, but unless you make a 180 turn all of a sudden, it is obvious that nothing will change. I have wasted far too much time on this anyway, and I'm sick of having to debate with someone who spares no opportunity to belittle me. I guess you won't mind though, considering my inept understanding of sociology, my inability to comprehend logic, my hypocrisy, my inability to grasp modern physics and all the other flaws in my character.

You can go ahead and take the last word if you want. If you want to gloat about the victory you will undoubtedly claim, be my guest, as I probably won't even bother reading your response. I stand firm in my place though, and maintain that R=U is in no way a plausible theory, and I know from experience that the only ones who were not convinced by the FAQ I co-wrote are people who won't change their mind ever. Your comparison of this argument to the existence of God and the fact that your signature calls FF8 a "religion" only serve to confirm these notions.

But as I said, please do take the time to gloat. I have school-work to do, and have no desire to waste any more hours in this thread.

Sir B.

[Lychon]

"Nu-uh, you started it!"

This is what I was talking about. I deliberately stayed clear of anything not directly relating to R=U (ie. my unbending character etc.) because I didn't want this to turn into a "you started it" thing. I reacted because you completely ignored this and proceeded to claim that I must surely have conceded by choosing not to comment on your accusations of my character, and guess what, you just started a "you started it" debate. Tell you what, if it makes you concentrate more on the R=U theory than my unbending personality, then by all means, stick with your claim that I started it, and I won't disagree.

I had already stated that neither side could claim definitude about their arguments over R=U, but you continued the charade and degraded the entire conversation to a bickering debate over your shortcomings. You actually admitted that both sides could not claim definitude, and then you went on to say that R=U could not be because of a ‘plausible absoluteness.’ I also never said anything about anyone ‘starting anything;’ you are doing this by now degrading this conversation even further, and by doing so you are once again becoming hypocritical, since it was you that originally complained about the argument turning to a petty debate. I see this as a way for you to make up for the actual real topic that you lost in. I’m sticking with the claim that ‘you started it’ because that is what happened, and the person who first even mentioned the words ‘you started it’ was you, and you did it in your above quotation.

One thing though: if my character is so unimportant to you, I find it odd that references to me being unbending, hypocritical, narrowminded, a poor 'dialectical' debater, and incapable of enjoying FF8 have only increased with your latest posts.

I only want to point these out as a favor to you, good sir. Perhaps if you actually noticed your flaws your arguments would be much more forceful and relative to the topic. If you refuse to understand how you have become hypocritical and unbending and a poor debater, then that is your shortcoming. Like I said, I have no problem with it since these flaws on your part only serve to boost my own arguments, lol .

Maybe I misread this quote of yours then: "it is really difficult to carry on an intelligent and logical argument if you ignore the points of the person you are arguing with". Perhaps you didn't mean what I assumed it to mean though. I am perfectly willing, unbending as I am, to admit to making mistakes in huge arguments like this, after all.

Whether you admit them or not, mistakes were made on your part. In the above quote I was referring to you ignoring my posts and skipping over them. You can continue to do so if you feel like you wish to concede an even greater portion of this argument to me. If you were actually unbending then you would have admitted to the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia a long time ago, as I have proven possible and plausible over and over again.

I honestly don't know how I am supposed to respond to this, considering that you said the same thing in my last post, which I proceeded to explain was taken out of context. Do I really have to repeat it once more? One last try:

Here once again you go off-topic, even though you yourself keep complaining about this, lol . By doing so, you are becoming even more of a hypocrite, and it is looking less and less likely that you will ever make a comeback in this argument. Nevertheless, let’s see what you say:

What you call 'hypocrisy' is in fact a necessary assumption in any 'dialectical argument'. Please do not yet again mistake this as saying that hypocrisy is essential in logic. It is saying that what YOU call hypocrisy (ie. being able to rule out various possible scenarios as not valid despite no exact definitude existing) is necessary. If not, we would get into a logical quagmire. I could argue that pink elephants cause gravity, and without any such demands placed on valid theories, I could go ahead and maintain the truth of my theory. If you said it was ridiculous, I could merely respond "You don't know perfectly for sure, do you?" and that would be that. Similarly, in FF8, we do not know perfectly for sure what will happen after the game has ended, but that does not mean we can thus entertain any theory possible to conceive of. Theories must be judged.

No, hypocrisy is not a necessary assumption in a dialectical argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with valid arguments, it is simply a undesirable character flaw. You yourself have said in a previous quote that hypocrisy is essential to logic, and now you state that hypocrisy is not essential to argument. This is nothing more than back-tracking hypocrisy, and I find it hilarious that you are exemplifying hypocrisy while you are attempting to clean yourself from it. Hypocrisy is not ‘being able to rule out various possible scenarios as not valid despite no exact definitude existing.’ Your entire definition of the concept is completely faulty- ruling out scenarios involves no ‘hypocrisy’ whatsoever, and I am surprised that you keep bringing this point up actually. Here once again you start talking about pink elephants, after I have disproved the entire notion of being related at all to principles of the R=U argument. You are once again delving into hypocrisy here by admitting that we cannot know perfectly for sure that Rinoa is Ultimecia, while a few posts back you admitted that you knew with a ‘plausible absoluteness’ that she was not Ultimecia. Theories do have to be judged, and they are judged. Rinoa being Ultimecia was judged, and it was proven plausible and both possible. If you refuse to accept this, then that is your own logical ‘quagmire’ that you must resolve inside your mind.

Please do not misread me yet again and take this as saying that R=U is equivalent to pink elephants causing gravity. The pink elephants are only meant as an example of why we must be able to judge the validity of theories, including the R=U theory. If we did not do so, my Irvine theory (do you finally see why I used this example now?) would be just as possible as your R=U scenario, even though the Irvine theory is obviously complete bull.

By bringing up pink elephants, you are in fact relating the principles of argument of the R=U theory with such a notion. It is not a question of misreading you, it is a question of your arguments being extremely fragile. The Irvine theory is by no means ‘just as possible’ as the R=U theory. If you believe so, please offer some actual in-game references or logical conclusions which will be evaluated. The fact remains that there is much more behind the R=U theory, so much more that I have proved it both plausible, possible, and perhaps even probable.

For someone so keen on using the word "dialectical", you should surely know that such a "hypocritical" (in your words, that is) assumption is absolutely essential if any sort of meaningful discussion is to be held. Unless you are the kind of person who might spend hours defending the possibility of the pink elephants?

I do not even think you knew what ‘dialectical’ meant before I started using it. Speaking of using words, you seem to like to use ‘quagmire’ a lot. This word actually borders on inappropriateness in the way that you are trying to use it. A much better substitute would be ‘predicament’ instead. So, since you bring up the idea of pink elephants once again, perhaps you should offer some support of the idea, just like you should offer some support towards your idea of Irvine having a sex change. I would never defend such concepts. It is you who brought them up to erroneously relate them to the R=U theory, but you fail to understand that even the principles of such things are by no means the same. R=U is supported by much in-game and logical references, while you have cited none of these for pink elephants or for Irvine getting a sex change.

I'm sorry if you feel I have put words into your mouth in this argument. As mentioned, I make mistakes, being human and all. But honestly, do you really think I am the only one here who has made any mistakes?

I have not made mistakes and all of my arguments are logically sound. The only person here who has made mistakes and has admitted to it is you. Not only have you spent the first 10% of this entire post arguing off-topic, but now you actually go into admitting you made mistakes and attempting to goad me to do the same. I would gladly admit to making mistakes if you can point out valid mistakes that I have made, just as I have done with you.

I'm sorry, but it seems my exaggerated comment (a common tool in debates of any kind) of "vital arguments" came across as being completely literal. You must understand that I may during my posts use sarcasm, exaggerations and the likes to make a point. Maybe it was my fault for not making it clear enough, but you clearly read way too much into my statement there. It was by no means an attempt to words into your mouth. Please don't be so paranoid; I'm not that desperate at 'winning' the argument.

Relax, no one is being paranoid. The fact remains that you did attempt to twist my arguments and put words into my mouth, as I have demonstrated in my previous post and I will continue to demonstrate in this post a little further down. One example in the last post was when you actually accused me of brining up quantum dynamics, when it was clearly you who erroneously brought this up in relation to time travel. Your comments about pink elephants and Irvine getting a sex change are completely irrelevant here, so therefore they must be taken literally unless you purposely wanted this conversation to go off-topic. Once again, if you want to support these things, then offer evidence in their favor.

Explained above, and several times in my previous posts.



A bold claim indeed. Are you really saying that you think you have shown R=U to be more plausible than R =/= U? I think this will be touched upon more later on in the post though, so I won't go into it all here.

NOTE: This is not conceding to the argument, you know. It's just that there will probably be more fitting moments to get into it later on in this post.

I have shown you the logical and in-game references that Rinoa can be Ultimecia, and then I have shown you how this could have been altered by Ultimecia achieving time compression. I look forward to you addressing this topic further in the argument, as I will most surely be mentioning it below. Now, hopefully you are done with all the ‘petty squabbling’ and we can actually begin arguing about Rinoa=Ultimecia. Frankly, you already admitted to the possibility of such an idea, and I have proved that it is also plausible and even probable. So if you want to continue arguing against me and your former statements, then by all means do so.

No, I suppose I should rather go by your own standards and fill every other line (note: here is an example of an exaggeration like I mentioned before) with condescending comments about your "unbending personality" or your lack of any 'dialectical skills'. The worst thing is though that you're actually succeeding in dragging me down to the "you started it lol" thing which I hate. Sorry, but you aren't exactly making it easy on me.

NOTE: Great. My response to the first part of your post alone is already longer than most posts -__- *sigh*

Interesting that you accuse me of beginning a ‘you started it’ post, when your first words in this post were “Nuh uh, you started it!” I think you simply enjoy being hypocritical, and I have not dragged you down anywhere. I am merely responding to your posts one by one, since every single one is grossly incorrect (whether it is an on-topic post about R=U or whether it is an off-topic post). What’s even more worrisome to me is that if you think ‘I am dragging you down,’ why do you even keep responding to anything you believe is off-topic? Oh right…the hypocrisy….my bad.

Nice of you to inform of me what I was thinking earlier, but I'm afraid this isn't exactly the first "serious debate" I've been in. It's not like you're coming with whole new angles on the R=U theory you know; I've been in the exact same discussion many times in the past. So let's please not go into my motives or what I was thinking at any time, ok?

No, not ok. If you had seen these ‘angles’ on the R=U theory before, then you should have been prepared to have valid counter-arguments for them. You have shown yourself lacking in this area, therefore it would much better suit you if you supported the R=U debate. I have shown you plenty of in-game references and logical conclusions, but you continue to refuse to acknowledge them.

Again, I was exaggerating ever so slightly. Is this technique really new to you? Yes, a lot of points in your previous posts I thought irrelevant and stupid (eg. all references to my personality and the likes), but I kept arguing because there were actually proper points to adress.

You were being literal ever so greatly, perhaps out of frustration or perhaps out of hypocrisy. Either way, I find it hilarious that you would seek to educate me on the exaggeration technique since you employ so poorly in your own arguments. You can keep arguing any points you want, but your arguments have consistently been disproved by myself and I have shown that you commonly contradict yourself through hypocrisy and unrelated writings.

I am perfectly aware that I have made some mistakes in terms of what I chose and did not choose to comment upon previously in this thread, and I have already apologised for that (funny how an unbending fellow like myself is the only one who has confessed to making mistakes so far). I do believe though that whatever relevants points I failed to address before, I will have answered in the span of this post and my last post. Again, I am sorry.

You don’t need to apologize to me or even admit to any mistakes because I was already aware of them even before you acknowledged them. It is irrelevant though to your continued hypocrisy and unbending character because you still refuse to see the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia in the face of logic and in-game references. I appreciate the apology, but I appreciate it even more if you admitted to me and to yourself the conclusion that R=U is very much a possibility, and not just that, but a very likely possibility.

I agree completely. I was stupid for responding to your personal criticism of me, and regret it now. I was tired yesterday and was simply unable to control my frustration of your repeated claims of me being unbending etc. and your claim that I must have conceded arguments to you. A poor excuse perhaps, but there you are.

I will continue with the facts that you are unbending and that you did concede arguments to me. Anyone who chooses to argue about the possibility of R=U after they have admitted to such a possibility is very unbending and hypocritical in my eyes. If you really did not want to respond to any ‘personal criticisms’ then perhaps you should not have wasted now nearly 20% of your opening to this post by doing so.

And again, I point out that I already have apologised for failing to address all the relevant points of your previous post. I kind of hoped you would be big enough to accept the apology and move on, but I have been dissapointed so far, I must admit. Probably because I am such a poor debater compared to yourself, I suppose.

You can admit to being a poor debater all you want, but the posts speak for themselves. You still fail to address all the relevant points that I have cited in my previous arguments, just as you fail to acknowledge the logic and in-game references which guarantee a plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia. Self-pity on your part will not deter me from answering all your posts, one-by-one, with the same truthful logic and evaluation that I have done in the past.

Adressed earlier.


I'll give you one thing; you are an expert at provoking. I had to take my dog for a long walk before being able to ignore this obvious bait.

It was not a bait. You keep complaining about ‘petty squabbles’ yet you spend nearly half of your posts responding to off-topic quotations. I actually do not mind it, that is why I do not complain. But if you complain about it, then why do you keep doing it? I’m going to take a quick break right now before I get into the rest of your post, but be assured that I will get to it, lol . (I have to go study a bit for Monday and also grab something to eat, hehe).

Interesting. Yet considering that Ultimecia lives long after the game has ended, and thus can't be assumed to have even been born yet (the people in FF8 obviously not being familiar with the R=U theory), I can't see how people can see Ultimecias future birth as a reason to seal up a sorceress born long before Ultimecias era (ie. Rinoa). So that obviously doesn't work.

Yes, it does work. Actually, it works perfectly. Society does not want any change of any sorceress developing into Ultimecia, so they set out to kill all the sorceresses, driven by their hatred and panic. Since Rinoa has connections to Squall and Laguna, she is not killed, but rather imprisoned in the Sorceress Memorial, only to break free due to some future event and become seriously embittered that her lover Squall is now dead. She then turns into Ultimecia, and seeks to compress time and end the persecution and end everything that has pained her. If you cannot see how probable and possible this is, then perhaps you seriously need a complete reevaluation of thought.

You can, of course, still argue that people feared sorceresses in general, and thus demanded to have Rinoa sealed. Although Rinoa was not nearly well known to the public as a sorceress by the end of the game, and had protection in very high places, you could of course conceive of a scenario in which the pressure from the people overcomes all this and seals away Rinoa. Does the fact that one might conceive of such a scenario make it plausible though? I think I'll get back to that later on, if you don't mind.

It has no matter if she was well known or not well known to the public in the end of the game. Because of the paranoia that sweeps the world following time compression, all sorceresses are tracked down and persecuted. In fact, since people already know and have participated in attempting to lock Rinoa away, she is probably the most known sorceress in the world, even if the general public is still unaware of her existence. Therefore, your above logic is flawed and has been proven wrong. I don’t mind if you get back to it later- I’ll be glad to break down your arguments here and then, lol .

The entire scenario of Rinoa being locked away is much more than plausible and possible: it is very probable. It is not simply a scenario that someone has ‘concieved.’ The scenario related directly to in-game evidence and logical conclusion.You once again forget that I never wanted to prove that Rinoa is Ultimecia. I only wanted to establish the possibility and plausibility of such an event, something which I have done many times already.

Ignoring your pointless and arrogant discussion about whether or not my "questions" can be labelled arguments or not, I will agree to this; it is possible to conceive of a scenario in which Rinoa can reach Ultimecias era despite not having extended lifespan. Still, I don't think it's quite time to discuss why this doesn't suddenly make the theory highly plausible.

Your did not have any arguments, you simply had questions which I have all answered and you still refuse to acknowledge. I have already proven it possible, and I have proven it plausible. Besides, wasn’t it you that just a few posts claim that ‘possible’ was the same as ‘plausible’? I think you are delving once again into hypocrisy. Nevertheless, I eagerly await your continued flawed discussion of why R=U is not possible. (Calling my discussion ‘pointless and arrogant’ is quite funny to me, actually, when it is those two same characteristics that you flaunted carelessly in your previous post.)

It doesn't discard the possibility, sure, I said as much above. It does, however, weaken the argument, because the more questions that have to be answered (answers that are inherently based on the uncertainty of what happens after the game ends mind you), the less plausible the theory becomes. I'll get back to this, but you must surely agree that if there are two contesting theories, the one which requires the least assumptions and relies the least on uncertainties after the game has ended is the best one, no?

No, it does not weaken the argument at all. I have already shown you countless times that R=U is both plausible and both possible, but because of your unbending character when it comes to FFVIII, you refuse to see it. Regardless of how many theories there are, we are talking about the R=U theory, and I am taking that theory by itself. Your attempt to introduce new theories because you think they are ‘better’ or take on ‘less assumptions’ is completely irrelevant. Once again, I never set out to prove which theory about the game is better, or to even prove any theory at all. Just because one theory may seem more supported than another, does not by any means lessen the logic and in-game evidence of the former theory. Therefore, you are once again engaging in sophistic logic and not even addressing the issue at hand properly.

Now this is something I admit I should have dealt more severely with earlier, and which I will deal full attention now.

You frequently use this in your latest post as an argument as to the lack of hints pointing towards Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. You say that it may not appear that Rinoa will become Ultimecia because Ultimecia (in fact Rinoa) has tampered with the past, and use this as a defense for the R=U theory. But do you not see how ridiculous this is? This is, to be honest, absurd. Pause to consider exactly what you are saying:

You completely betray yourself as someone who cannot follow even basic logic here. Not only do you circumvent the scenario that I had written out for you regarding the son going in the past to tell his father not to marry his mother, but you do not understand the very essence of rational argument. I now see that you did not address this issue before because you had absolutely no defense for it. Ultimecia has forever altered the past when she achieved time compression, and if Rinoa ever was to become Ultimecia, the chances for this are now almost non-existent. This explains not only the happy ending of the game, but also explains the plausibility and probability of the R=U theory. Take a minute to look at my argument again and consider the logic in it. If you cannot see it, then you probably should not be arguing about this.

Assume Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. Since Ultimecia tampers with time, all traces of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia may be gone, so the lack of support/hints for R=U does not render the theory invalid.

I never said that the theory is rendered invalid. Even if Ultimecia alters time to the point that Rinoa will not become her, this does not change the possible fact that Rinoa had already become Ultimecia before Ultimecia tampered with time. The only reason that Ultimecia does not blink out of existence is because she has sustained time compression: it is through her that time compression has been sustained, and her timeline and Rinoa’s timeline have become merged into one. The linear time effect has been negated, but once time has returned to normal, Ultimecia vanishes from existence. Therefore, my conclusions hold much a great degree of logical and in-game evidence, and you have proven yourself incapable of offering even one plausible argument that will negate my conclusions.

You have no other defense for the lack of support for the theory other than that Ultimecia tampered with time, so the Rinoa we play may not actually become Ultimecia, even though she did become her before time was tampered with. This is nothing more than a clever way of avoiding the fact that the game does not in any way hint towards R=U. You simply give a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, state that Ultimecia messed with time to remove all evidence of this happening, and still contest that it is highly plausible? Surely you must see the absurdity of the argument! By the same argument, I could seriously back up my absurd Irvine theory by stating that he got a sex-change, became Ultimecia, but then tampered with the past so that Irvine's female tendencies were wiped from the game. How would you be able to refute it?

I have plenty of other defenses for the R=U theory, all of which have been listed in this post or previous posts. If you refuse to read them, then it is not my fault that you have no memory of them. The only absurdity here is that you do not comprehend the logic behind the R=U argument. I do not know what the author’s original intention was: perhaps they wanted this to be much more subtle than the hints which state Laguna was Squall’s father. In any case, there is enough logical and in-game references which lends comfortable support to the R=U theory, and it is not my fault that you cannot come up with any other argument besides “This is absurd.” Lol, tell again how you would back up the Irvine sex-change argument? I have asked you repeatedly to state evidence of this, including in game evidence and logical evidence that Irvine has had a sex change, but you have done no such thing. The entire concept of Irvine getting a sex-change is completely different than Rinoa being Ultimecia. The R=U theory has great logical and in-game merit, unlike Irvine getting a sex-change which you just pulled out of thin air.

Furthermore, the game actually implies that the past cannot be changed at all. Recall that Ellone says "You can't change the past", that Squall also learned this the hard way trying to save Rinoa, and that the game is literally littered with references to fate ruling supreme in the game. Everything indicates that time is set in stone in FF8 (you said you read the FAQ I linked to you, so you should be familiar with the full arguments supporting this). But that is really secondary in comparison to the absurdity of the way you use changing the past to back up R=U.

You misinterpret what Ellone says. Ellone can only send people back in time to see through the eyes of other people, but they cannot change time. Ellone’s words had nothing to do with time compression or anything like that. Therefore, you are again circumventing this argument by stating a sophism which actually is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You have yet to offer one logical argument which contradicts any of my points for the R=U theory. I already offered the example of the son George traveling back in time, something that you seem to have bypassed so far in some kind of attempt to not address the argument. It makes perfect logical sense, so perhaps when your logical abilities have developed a bit more with age, you will understand what I am saying.

Finally, Ultimecia never actually achieves time compression. She begins it, yes, but had she finished it, it would have been game over, as only Ultimecia can exist in TC.

Incorrect. By stating the above, I am now convinced that you either did not finish the game or you are purposely altering the in-game evidence to suit your false arguments. Ultimecia did achieve time compression. Perhaps she did not achieve full time compression, but she nevertheless did compress various timelines into one. Therefore, even if Ultimecia only ‘began’ time compression, this still backs up all of my previous logical conclusions about R=U because timelines have still been merged, otherwise Squall and company would never have been able to fight Ultimecia in person.

Possible in theory? Yes. Can it be conceived of? Yes. But that doesn't matter, because nothing in the game directly indicates it (your so-called support I will deal with when it pops up later in this post). You even have to go so far as to embrace changing the past to explain away this. If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is.

Lol, the only person that is grasping at ‘straws’ here is you, but I nevertheless appreciate the comedy of the comment. Not only is the R=U theory possible, but I have proved it to be definitely plausible. And not only ‘in theory,’ but also in application R=U is possible as well. I eagerly await you dealing with my ‘so-called’ support because I wonder what other false arguments and logic you will come up with this time. The changing of the past is not necessary to my argument, but it is something that I have proven. You have nicely circumvented my example about the son traveling back in time to tell his father not to conceive him. Not only do my arguments hold against your falsehood, but they are strengthened immeasurably.

I agree. All ideas must be judged against what the game tells us, not by what I say.

May he really? I suppose it doesn't matter that such a process of psychologically imprinting Griever is never alluded to in the game, or anywhere but your own imagination then? The concept 'works' sure, but I can think of a million other concepts that work and yet are not based on what the game tells us. So please, explain how you extracted this idea from the game.

My, you like being patronizing, don’t you? I guess it’s not that fun when someone does it to you, does it? Lol, anyways, the idea of Griever being related to Squall is most definitely ‘alluded to’ in the game. He comes from Squall’s mind, but Griever is not yet a psychological imprint of Squall because Squall has not yet passed away. That is why Ultimecia must draw out Griever from Squall because in the future, Griever is all that is left from Squall to protect Rinoa (since he swore himself to her). I had actually already explained this in the game, so why don’t you try reading my previous post as well if you need further explanations. If the logic is a bit too advanced for you, then maybe I can rewrite it so that you can have a better comprehension of it. The entire theory has much more plausibility than Irvine getting a sex-change. I never set out to prove it, since I do not believe it can be proved unless we have a nice little chat with the creators of the game.

Oh really? The accepted definition of Griever is that he is created in the final battle from an image in Squall's head. You are stating that Squall made some sort of pseudo-scientific psychological imprint of Griever at death, which somehow stuck about all until Rinoa was released from her seal, when she used it to make Griever. There are similarities, but calling it logically justified based on the accepted definition is a far cry.

‘Pseudo-scientific psychological imprint’? I laughed out loud at this. You actually bring in science so bluntly when we are talking about a Final Fantasy game? The logic behind the theory holds, but I never meant to scientifically prove it. Twisting your opponents words may work on others, but it isn’t going to work on me good sir. Not only is this a logically justified possibility, but it is also supported by in-game evidence to a degree of great plausibility. I have already mentioned the evidence above, so you can check it out if you do not remember.

Again, very nice, provocative bait. I'll refrain this time too though, I'm afraid.

You can classify it however you wish, but I will just assume you are conceding this part of the argument, as you have conceded so many parts before. I don’t understand why you say that you’re ‘afraid.’ If I struck fear into you, then I apologize. I can’t stop supporting solid logic and in-game evidence, so you’ll have to forgive me if I continue to do so.

Again you use this absurd logic to explain why your ideas are not actually supported by the game at all. I already (hopefully) explained why such logic is ridiculous, and in no way makes for a plausible explanation (ie. because it literally means any case could be argued, seeing as any discrepancies with what we see in the game can be explained by altering of time, which is ludicrous).

The logic is by no means absurd, and if you keep calling it absurd in the future, perhaps you can point out to me exactly why it is absurd. The ideas are supported greatly by the game, and like I have stated above, if you have not finished the game or if you refuse to see the in-game evidence that Rinoa is indeed Ultimecia, than you’re on your own. You did not explain at all why my logic was ‘ridiculous,’ and it by no means states that any case can be argued. There is specific in-game evidence and logic which lends great credibility to the concept of Rinoa=Ultimecia, much more than any other theory which might be pulled out of thin air.

Why on earth not? Are you saying that the original script by the authors of FF8 is less valid then a translated version?

If you are not well aware of the countless mistranslations that many Japanese games have into English, then you do not have enough experience to cite the above quote. Perhaps the idea was the same, but it may have been modified in translation. Nevertheless, this does not make a whole lot of difference to the R=U debate- the logic and in-game references still hold up strongly and validly.

Excuse me? Since it was actually I and the co-authors of the FAQ referred to who first obtained this translation and brought it to this forum, I'm afraid I have difficulties believing that I somehow screwed up. So I'm afraid you'll have to do better than say something like that in order to convince me here.

No need for agitation, lol . I am not trying to convince you of anything. The FAQ you claim to have written is such an ‘absurd’ document that I have a hard time even classifying it as an FAQ. Not only is it completely contradictory by stating support for some theories and then falsely negating them, but you in fact betray yourself as greatly ignorant by using an FAQ you co-authored as a ‘third party’ source.

But as explained, your logic is ridiculous. Nothing in the game shows Griever to be a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia. All you have done is conceive of a way in which Griever COULD be a link, and then used the extremely weak argument that tampering with time is what prevents anything in the game from actually making this clear. Yet you are still bold enough to say it is not your imagination at work here, but the game itself?

The only things that ring ridiculous here are your arguments and your dialectical conclusions. The game links Griever to Ultimecia, and if Rinoa is Ultimecia, then Griever is linked to Rinoa as well. The logic for this is quite simple actually, and you have failed to negate it. I have not conceived of a way that Griever could be a link- this is a way that is supported with both logic and evidence from the game, and the arguments which build upon this to link it to R=U are so impregnable, and you resort to petty squabbling and bickering because you have no defense for them. It is not my imagination that prompts these conclusions, but the game itself, yes. Your shamelessness in claiming my arguments weak without offering one argument that negates them is quite shocking to me.

In-game proof? Would that be the same proof you have to explain the lack of due to time-tampering? All you have done is create a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. That scenario is not backed up by anything in the game. The fact that the people might overwhelm Squall and Laguna and demand Rinoa being sealed away is not actually hinted at in the game. It is merely a possibility you have conceived of. The link with Griever you have more or less admitted doesn't exist (and blame it on time-tampering at that). What else is there then supporting the scenario you have devised? Not a damn thing. Yes, the fact that the scenario exists makes it possible in theory, but for all purposes and intents, you have in no way demonstrated how it is highly plausible. Really, simply the fact that you have to resort to time-tampering as an explanation should be more than enough to demonstrate how lacking your scenario is.

Once again, the scenario I have stated has been backed up through in-game evidence and logical support. I listed many countless points which come up in the game that make perfect logical sense in relation to Rinoa being Ultimecia, such as the persecution of sorceresses following Ultimecia’s time compression. Therfore, Laguna not being able to prevent Rinoa from being imprisoned is not only possible but greatly plausible, as I have already shown you.

“Not a damn thing.” Relax, we’re having a nice chat here, so please refrain from cursing unless you really feel you must. There are plenty of things which not only support Rinoa being Ultimecia, but also support the great probability that Rinoa may be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial and Laguna not being able to prevent it. I do not actually have to result to ‘time-tampering’ to explain my theory. Time-tampering is a fact of the game, so I am once again using evidence in the game to add support to the R=U theory. Perhaps it is time that you started posting in-game evidence and logic which support the idea of Rinoa not being Ultimecia. I have already demonstrated strongly the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and you are once again becoming a hypocrite by stating that you now consider ‘possible’ to be different from ‘plausible.’ Just a few posts ago you lied by stating that the dictionary considers plausible to be the same thing as possible, just like you have lied with ‘false logic’ in a desperate attempt to disprove my arguments.

Crucial eh? So you do, actually, find it crucial that I should respond to all your quotes about me being unbending and not getting enjoyment from FF8? Funny, I thought you said in the beginning that this was not the case. In any case, I'll avoid the obvious flamebait yet again.

You like using the interjection ‘eh,’ don’t you? Lol, I never stated that I did not want you to respond to all of my arguments. I actually stated that I did want to you to respond to everything that I have written, unless you wished to concede parts of this argument. You have not responded to all of my quotes, and you continue to purposely omit certain parts of my quotes because you obviously have absolutely no defense for them. Therefore, you have already conceded a good part of this argument to me.

I suppose I must have misread your statement here then...

No, you did not misread anything. Perhaps you didn’t read it at all, but I doubt you misread it. I have already shown that in-game evidence is overwhelming when it comes to the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and you continue to deny the facts because of plain stubbornness.

The point is that this is not enough. Simply conceiving of a possible scenario does in no way make it plausible or valid in any way. That is what the Irvine theory was meant to demonstrate. You also have to show how it is firmly supported by the game, yet so far, all links you have made between Rinoa and Ultimecia rely on suspect ideas and time-tampering, hardly grounds for a good argument.

The scenario is not ‘simply conceived’ by me. It originated from in-game evidence and logical support which have made it greatly plausible and greatly possible. Here you once again reference the idea of Irvine getting a sex-change. I have asked you repeatedly to cite logic or evidence for this claim but you have failed to do so. Unlike my arguments which rest soundly on logic and evidence, your claims of pink elephants and Irvine getting a sex change are figments of your imagination.

Actually, I'm afraid I'm far too inept at sociology right now to understand a word you have said here. Could you please write it out in words I can understand, preferably avoiding such difficult words as "acquaintance". Thanks.

If you believe that ‘acquaintance’ to be a difficult word, then this entire argument is not one you should be participating in. I’m not about to educate you in history and sociology, two things that you can get a good dose of from in any history or sociology book. So ‘thanks,’ good sir, but I’ll sidestep schooling about those subjects. I’m mainly concerned with getting my arguments about Rinoa being Ultimecia across, something which I have already done.

Um, you literally said "Also, remember that Esthar already attempted to place Rinoa in a sorceress prison".

Yes, I was referencing Esthar’s imprisonment of Rinoa at that point. But overall, I am not necessarily referencing Rinoa being initially locked away in Esthar’s Sorceress Memorial. In fact, since Ultimecia has already altered the past, then that has probably somehow caused Squall to rescue Rinoa from the Memorial. If Ultimecia had not interfered with Rinoa’s timeline, then Rinoa may have been locked away in the Sorceress Memorial for real, and eventually freed to become Ultimecia. But since Ultimecia meddled in the past, Rinoa may now not become Ultimecia at all.

Again, your entire argument boils down to "Ultimecia might be Rinoa, she just tampered with time to remove all signs of this happening". If that is your idea of a good argument, I must question who taught you the concept of 'dialectical arguments'.

That is not my argument. That argument is one possibility, but it is not my central argument which uses great logic and in-game evidence to show that it is both plausible and possible for Rinoa to be the same person as the Ultimecia who compressed time. Perhaps a good idea on your part is to take up a nice speech and debate class. It would be excellent practice and maybe you might actually understand my arguments.

From the obvious fact that history would be recorded along with my inept understanding of sociology. Since you claimed to have read my FAQ, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with my own view here. Maybe it's been a while since you last read it?

I am familiar with your views, and I have disproved all of them. If you enjoy practicing beliefs which have been disproved, then those are your personal feelings which I will not delve into at this moment. I am already familiar with your faulty FAQ, and I have addressed it previously. Perhaps you yourself haven’t read it recently to see exactly how faulty and invalid it is?

And where exactly in that statement did I mention 'facts' in any way?

You stated that the persecution of sorceresses is what created Ultimecia, which is something that is not necessarily true. So therefore, I’ll repeat what I stated before: it is not wise to state ‘facts’ in this manner, especially since you are speaking in regards to an open-ended game such as Final Fantasy VIII which leaves many questions unanswered.

True, but the idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia, a sorceress born in the future and persecuted for being a sorceress is far more plausible than R=U, simply because it requires less assumptions and far out arguments (like time-tampering etc.). You cannot honestly think that R=U, a theory which requires such huge debates as this, to be more plausible than the simple idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia? The size of this post alone should make that sound a little silly...

You are once again stating facts that you have no idea if they are true or not. Ultimecia may or may not have been born in the future. We know that she comes from the future, but if she is Rinoa, then she is most definitely not born in the future. I am not comparing the R=U theory to others because I was never trying to prove the R=U theory. I was only trying to establish its possibility and plausibility, something I have done over and over again. The truth often takes huge debates and experiments to get to, so therefore my logic and in-game evidence still holds up, more strongly than ever, that Rinoa can in fact be Ultimecia.

Really convincing case, eh? Let's recap exactly what you are saying:

- After the game ended, knowledge that a sorceress nearly compressed all of time leaked to the public, who were infuriated, and demanded all sorceresses to be rounded up and killed.
- Rinoa, knowing people in high places, was spared, and only sealed up.
Squall was probably killed trying to save her. Laguna had to bow down due to politics.
Rinoa is somehow released from her seal, grows bitter at her fate, and becomes Ultimecia.

In-game support for any of this happening: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time.
In-game events/quotes hinting at Ultimecia being Rinoa: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time and/or because Square wanted to be really, really, really subtle about it.
-

Good recap, perhaps now you can actually work on disproving them if you are really so adamant about Rinoa not being Ultimecia. There is tons and tons of in-game support for this happening, and I have already cited all the in-game evidence and logic that you canpossibly want, lol . Yet, you refuse to admit to it once again, but you continue this charade of false arguments and discussions about what you personally believe is fact and what is not fact.

Besides things that Ultimecia and Rinoa say (such as when Ultimecia discusses the SeeDs destined to fight her, or when Rinoa says that she wants time to stand still and does not want the future, or when Rinoa is almost imprisoned in the Sorceress Memorial, or the fact that Ultimecia used Griever from Squall’s mind) provide copious amounts of in-game evidence and in-game support of the R=U theory. Therefore, you are either lying when you state that there is neither of both, or you are downright ignoring my previous arguments, as you have admitted yourself.

Therefore, based on the above statements, and the previous proofs I supplied of logical and in-game evidence, we can conclude of the definite possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

I'm sorry, but that hardly warrants a description as a "strongly convincing case". If I need to explain why(and I have attempted to in this post), you shouldn't even be having this argument to begin with.

It actually warrants a hugely convincing case, but because you have proven yourself to be such an unbending, hypocritical individual, you refuse to see plain logic and evidence. Your explanations why R=U is not possible have all been proven false, and I still await the post when you will actually purport an argument which is not a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking..

Your idea of the persecution of sorceresses straight after the game ends is only one possible scenario backed up by nothing in the game. It could have taken much longer for anger to build up; the public might not find out that Rinoa is a sorceress; Laguna and Squall may be able to keep the lid on the anger.

The idea of sorceress persecution is backed up by everything in the game. I have already shown you plenty of evidence for this, including obvious sorceress persecution in the game which at the very least offers the possibility of Rinoa being persecuted. In combination with the logic and more in-game evidence, that situation not only becomes possible but it becomes plausible. But like I have already stated, since Ultimecia has altered the past, Rinoa may never become Ultimecia and that is why the game has a happy ending. By attempting to destroy time, Ultimecia inadvertently brought about her own destruction.

Secondly, I have already told you why Laguna and Squall may not have been able to control the persecution of sorceresses. Since you admitted to be inept in sociology and history, you are in no position to continue arguing this. Rinoa is actually one of the most well-known sorceresses in the world after the game ends, even though the general public still does not know of her existence. The anger of the general public will have become heightened right after Ultimecia nearly destroyed their world, so it would have taken a long time for that anger to have built up.

Your idea does make for a conceivable R=U scenario, but on it's own, it is not nearly enough to make a case for something as controversial as R=U.

Not only does my evidence make R=U conceivable, but it makes it highly, highly, highly plausible and perhaps even probable. Besides, as I have already stated, I never intended to prove the R=U. You on the other case have claimed a ‘plausible absoluteness’ to your argument, which contradicts your earlier posts which states that neither side can claim definitude for their arguments.

Except as explained earlier, you practically admitted that this was not backed up by the game when you relied on time-tampering to explain how it can work. Nothing in the game backs it up, it is only your imagination. Your claim that it "might have happened but Ultimecia tampered with time" is irrelevant. Anything could have happened if we go by that, including as mention, the Irvine being Ultimecia 'theory'.

I did not admit anything, but nice attempt at putting words into my mouth again. I was offering merely another logically justified fact of time-manipulation, something which you refuse to admit to for some reason. Everything in the game backs up the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and simply because you have your mind set on one unbending and incorrect image of the game does not mean that the truth will be suppressed.

Here you once again mention Irvine getting a sex-change. This has nothing to do with the principles of the R=U argument. I have nevertheless asked you repeatedly to defend such a notion with in-game evidence and logic, and you have failed to do so.

As explained though, your dependance on time-tampering for R=U to work only serves to weaken your argument, not strengthen it. Furthermore, the game itself indicates that time is set in stone, and since TC was never fully completed, your assumption that Ultimecia's intitiating of it caused the past to alter is thus completely unfounded.

My theories have no definite dependence on time-tampering theories. They are merely logical justifications which support the R=U theory, and you have failed numerous times in disproving them. The time-tampering theories actually serve to greatly strengthen my arguments, but they are not the basis of the R=U theory. The game does not state that time is set in stone, lol, this is a figment of your false imagination. In fact, through Ultimecia, the game demonstrates that time is definitely not set in stone. Also, Ultimecia did achieve to beginning of time-compression, so it is irrelevant here that she did not finish or complete it.

...in which she is rescued by Squall. The fact that Rinoa was initially sealed away due to the threat of Ultimecia possessing her, and then rescued, does in no way imply that after the game has ended, they'll suddenly rush to seal her up again. The two are unrelated.

Yes, she is freed by Squall the first time that people try to imprison her in the Sorceress Memorial. As I have already stated, there is logical and in-game evidence which supports Rinoa becoming Ultimecia by being imprisoned in the Memorial a second time, or her never becoming Ultimecia because Ultimecia has forever altered the past by time compression. Therefore, the game has a happy ending because since Ultimecia altered the past, it is likely that Rinoa will now never become Ultimecia, and she will live happily with Squall. So therefore, your above quote is completely crushed. Sorry about that.

Indulge.

Given the fact that you admitted to skipping over my previous posts, I will not ‘indulge’ you here. I have already stated everything you need to know, so here’ a suggestion. Try indulging yourself by reading though my previous posts and trying to understand them. If you succeed, then you will have succeeded in understanding the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Perhaps. But do you honestly think that Square decided to add some extremely, subtle, not alluded to at all, secret plot-twist only noticeable by a very elite few? Not only is that counter to Square's record when it comes to storylines, it would be bad for business, quite frankly. In FF games, Square try and tell a story. They leave some stuff for discussion, sure, but hardly such unfounded things as R=U.

If it was subtle, then it makes perfect sense. We do not know for sure, so you once again contradict your earlier statement when you said that Rinoa was not Ultimecia by means of a ‘plausible absoluteness.’ Actually, if such a ‘secret’ plot does exist, it would great for business for Square. People, such as us, would keep talking and talking about it, continuing interest in Square and their games. So you are once again incorrect when you state that it will be bad for business if Rinoa was subtly hinted as being Ultimecia. Also, since Rinoa being Ultimecia is greatly founded, and since Final Fantasy VIII is one of the most open-ended, questionable games ever made, then the plausibility and possibility of the R=U theory makes perfect sense.

If you are honestly going to seriously uphold the notion that Laguna may not be Squall's father, I'm leaving the debate, because in that case there is clearly no point trying to convince you.

You are seriously one of the most close-minded individuals that I have ever argued with, and you should probably not be arguing anything in reference to Final Fantasy VIII. Sure, it may be probable that Laguna is Squall’s father, but that has not been proven as ‘fact.’ It seems to me you classify as fact whatever you want, and classify as falsehood whatever you do not want to be fact. I, on the other hand, do no such thing. I never stated that Rinoa is definitely Ultimecia, and I never stated that Laguna is definitely not Squall’s father.

Unfounded though. Sounds to me like you are saying Square made subtle hints so as to enable the R=U theory more than that the R=U is enabled by subtle hints.

Actually, it is greatly founded, as I have already demonstrated through in-game evidence and logical conclusion. What’s more, it makes even greater sense if it is true that Square included such subtle hints and game references to the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Considering that you STILL have not understood the meaning of the Irvine theory, I find it amusing that you can accuse me of ignorance.

I have understood the meaning of your Irvine theory, and I have also proved it out of place and irrelevant. Please offer evidence for such a theory, or even logical support for it if you are going to continue citing it.

Oh really? But using the same logic you do, I can claim that Irvine got a sex-change, became a sorceress, became persecuted and became Ultimecia, and then through tampering with time removed all evidence of his female tendencies in the game. The R=U theory has no real backing (see above responses to the support you mentioned), and you have even admitted that the hints are incredibly tiny and subtle at best. I really don't see where the leap "logical and in-game support" comes from.

Incorrect. You are not, by any means, using the same logic as I do when you make a wild statement such as Irvine getting a sex-change. I give specific in-game examples and logical evidence for Rinoa being Ultimecia, but you give nothing in regards to a theory about Irvine getting a sex change. The R=U has a very great backing, and you once again contradict yourself by admitting that I have given in-game hints about the theory, when just a few quotations ago you stated that I have cited absolutely no in-game evidence or hints. Being supported by both logical and in-game evidence, as I have shown, the R=U theory is by no means even close to being compared to your concept of Irvine getting a sex-change.

Particularly nice flamebait. I like the touch about you re-educating me. It really makes you appear as superior in' the art of dialectics'. Your claim of my lack of open-mindedness is particularly nice. I like the way you completely ignored the fact that I stated more than once that I used to be exactly like you, but changed my mind after years of arguing. Still, I guess you're only open-minded if you refuse to back down from an idea, eh?

Wow, you really like using the interjection ‘eh,’ don’t you? Lol, you know, ‘flamebait’ is not actually a word, so forgive me for continuing to reeducate you. It matters not that you were once in support of the R=U theory. Obviously since then something has happened which has caused you to become inflexible and unbending in dialectical arguments. After years of arguing, I have only been convinced even further of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and I have laid waste to all of your arguments. Therefore, I conclude that you are extremely close-mindedness if you continue to support the idea that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Besides, I never stated that Rinoa is definitely Ultimecia, nor did I state that was bent on proving this idea.

Notice that while you claim here there is a "plethora" of ingame quotes and evidence supporting the idea, you later admit that all 9 such hints I listed were not very good. I'll comment more on this later when it pops up then, if you don't mind.

Oh, I don’t mind if you comment on it now or later, lol . It is entirely your choice, good sir. But let me ask you something: What does the fact that some in-game hints are bad or good have to do with their existence? I did not cite those specific and superficial in-game hints because they are not enough to significantly sway anyone about Rinoa or Ultimecia’s true identity. However, they are not bad hints in of themselves. My own logical and in-game evidence has already proved the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and if you want to add more in-game hints of the theory, than be my guess. Besides, it only serves to help my position, so I do not even know why you brought those hints up. I have already asked you to disprove my own defense, but why don’t you try and disprove the 9 in-game hints that you are referring to? I await your response on this…if you don’t mind.

I liked your last flamebait better =/

This coming from the person who ended an argument with "Damn I'm good! lol".

I never ended any argument with “Damn I’m good! Lol.” I put that in as a joke following one of my quotes in the middle of a past post. Unlike you, I do not use curses in a belligerent or patronizing manner. Lastly, as I have attempted to inform you above, ‘flamebait’ is not a word. If you want to use it correctly, you should probably put a dash following flame, making it a link. Just a suggestion. (Doesn’t really matter, because I understand what you are trying to say with that word.).

I already did; hence the FAQ I referred you to. Granted, you won't find a list of "these hints/events in the game directly go against R=U". Two reasons for that:

1) Since the game doesn't actually support R=U in any way, it is impossible to find arguments either way. No arguments in the game directly point to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, and similarly, nothing can be found which directly goes against Ultimecia. This simply is due to the fact that Square obviously never planned the R=U theory to be part of the game.

The game does have in-game evidence and logical support for R=U, as I have shown. Therfore, it is quite possible to find arguments in both directions of the debate. (I can’t believe you actually said ‘it is impossible to find arguments either way.’ What do you think we’ve been doing all this time? Lol) Like I have already said, the game may not point directly to R=U, but since FFVIII ended with so many questions unanswered, it is quite possible that the authors meant R=U to be much more subtle than something like Laguna being Squall’s father. You have no idea if Square really planned or did not plan for Rinoa to be Ultimecia, so your assumption that Square did not plan for this is unfounded and false.

2) I am not the one defending a controversial theory. It is your job to show why the R=U theory makes perfect sense and is backed up by the game, not my job to show you why it doesn't fit in. I am supporting the common-sense view (ie. Ultimecia is Ultimecia). If you want to come here with a theory not immediately obvious in the game, it is your job to make it valid, not my job to refute it. If all your arguments are refuted, the theory is invalid.

For someone so obviously an expert in the 'dialectical art', I find it surprising that you are not even aware of this basic fact.

True, you are not defending a controversial theory. The same can be said with atheists: they are not the ones defending the controversial theory of God, but that does not mean that God doesn’t exist. Your false logic oozes so freely that the work is almost done for me, lol . I never intended to show that R=U makes perfect sense. I have already proven that it is both plausible and possible for such an event to occur, therefore I have done my job and it is now your turn to do offer valid points against R=U. The common sense view is one of open-mindedness, so therefore, there is nothing in regards of common sense about your views, which are mostly unbending hypocrisies of close-mindedness. None of my arguments have been refuted, and even if they were, that still would not refute the theory. Your logic breaks down here once again. Just because a specific set of arguments are defeated, does not mean that the defense of those arguments is also defeated. But it matters not because all of my arguments have only become stronger in light of your fragile attacks, so I don’t even know why you are bringing up the point of my arguments being ‘proven invalid,’ lol .

Your above quote only shows that you have a lot more to learn when it comes to dialectics. It is interesting also that you put variations of the word ‘dialectics’ in quotations. Are you not familiar with the word? I assure you, it is perfectly valid good sir.

Don't forget my ineptness at sociology!

Why thank you for reminding me. You yourself admitted that you had little knowledge of history and sociology, so you are even less suited for arguing against certain of my points in regards to R=U.

Nice of you to completely ignore my repeated apologies. And yes, you did take parts of my post out of context, which I already demonstrated. Your inability to point out exactly why it was not taken out of context only confirms this.

I acknowledge your apologies, but it does not change the fact that you are still wrong in the face of undeniable logical and in-game plausibility. You say that I took some of your posts out of context after you yourself admitted to skimming over my previous posts and ignoring some of my writings. I, on the other hand, have politely answered to all of your quotes, without taking anything out of context. I have previously pointed out exactly where you took my posts out context, so accusing me of doing the same thing just so you can accuse me of something is not very helpful to this argument.

Never implied that I was the supreme judge, now did I? I have repeatedly stated that the basis of any theory must be that it is rooted firmly in what the game tells us. Your dependance on time-tampering to explain away the lack of support confirms the weakness of your arguments.

Actually, yes you did imply that you were the supreme judge. Let me take you back to the post when you wrote the phrase ‘plausible absoluteness.’ You remember that, don’t you good sir? Lol, not only did you state that neither side of the argument can claim definitude, but you also then state that your arguments have a ‘plausible absoluteness.’ The basis of the R=U theory does not have to be rooted firmly in what the game tells, nor does any other theory about the game. However, as I have already shown, there is significant evidence in the game, as well as logical proof, that R=U is both possible and plausible. For a game such as Final Fantasy VIII, the questions left open are seemingly resolved by the R=U theory. Like I already said, I am not trying to prove this, but I have proved that it is both plausible and possible.

Also, you keep stating that I have some kind of dependence on the issue of time-tampering. Time-tampering is a fact of the game, and if you cannot admit this, then you are denying the very core of the game itself. My arguments have only grown in strength while yours have crumbled into false logic.

As for Irvine and Pink Elephants, I have already explained why you are taking that out of context, and what I mean with those examples, but if you haven't already grasped it, I won't even bother repeating myself again.

I am not taking your arguments of pink elephants and Irvine getting a sex change out of context. You fail to see that the principles of such arguments have nothing to do with the R=U theory, and you are only bringing the entire discussion more and more off-topic by continuing to cite them. I ask you once again: offer me in-game evidence that Irvine has had a sex change, or offer me logical support for such a conclusion. If you cannot do this, then perhaps it is time to stop mentioning it.

As explained though, that is not the case at all. Rinoa NOT being Ultimecia is the simplest, straightforward, common-sense idea. R=U is a controversial theory which claims that the game is quite different from what it appears, and thus it is YOUR responsibility to convince me why it is valid, not my responsibility to explain why it cannot be. Again, this is a basic fact when it comes to new theories. When someone proposes a new, radical theory, that person must come with all arguments. It is not everyone elses job to jump up and try and contradict the theory.

Incorrect. Rinoa being Ultimecia is already supported both logically and through in-game evidence, so it is quite possible and plausible. The R=U theory fits within the unanswered questions of the game. It is not foreign to the game and it may in fact turn out to be true. I have already proved the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, so I have done my job. Now the work rests on you: You have offered only weak, illogical arguments to contradict R=U, all of which have been demolished by myself. Now you have to answer the questions that have been left by the game’s ending. I have already proved that R=U answers those questions quite well. This does not mean that R=U is true, but it does mean that the theory is both plausible and possible.

Secondly, the R= U theory is not new and it is really not that radical when you consider logic and in-game evidence. If you refuse to see these things, then that is your own character flaw and I am not about to go into such an argument about perceptions. (Although if you bring it up, I will be glad to continue arguing about it indefinitely). The concept of God may or may not be true, but no one has to prove it for people to believe it. And there is both logical and world evidence for God, just like there is both logical and in-game evidence for Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Commented on this earlier.

Once again you bypass my posts with a mere 4 word comment. You may have commented on something earlier, but I have since expanded on your comment, so if you wish this to be an intelligent conversation you should address all points accurately and completely.

If Rinoa =/= Ultimecia, but Ultimecia = Ultimecia, all loose ends are tied up as well, and don't need the additional assumptions required to make R=U work. You seem to think that only R=U can explain all the "unanswered questions" in the game. You are quite mistaken. In the FAQ referred to, you will find a far more plausible theory of Ultimecias birth, one which does not require such weak arguments such as "time-tampering having altered everything!".

No, if Ultimecia simply equals Ultimecia, nothing is tied up. So many questions remain of Ultimecia’s true nature, her true motives, the mystery behind her words and her extraction of Griever, as well as the mystery of Ellone. Such complex questions seem to be answered by the complex proposition that Rinoa is Ultimecia. I never stated that I think that only “R=U” answers the questions left in Final Fantasy VIII- this is a false assumption on your part which makes absolutely no sense. We are discussing one theory here, and you again are trying to bring in off-topic points to support your weak defenses. Also, why would you put ‘unanswered questions’ in quotation marks? If you felt that Final Fantasy VIII left no unanswered questions, then please, explain everything to me here so I can break it down into the assuming falsehoods on your part.

Your entire quote above is vastly erroneous. Firstly, the FAQ you are referring to is completely false and incorrect, so we can discard that right now. Moving on, I have already proven that time-tampering has altered Rinoa and Squall’s timeline, so it is by no means a weak argument, as you so falsely claim, lol .

Err, no you have not. Firstly, you have no even specified what exactly the unanswered questions in the game are, let alone explained why R=U is the best way to answer them. Please don't come with statements that are not actually true.

Actually, yes I have. Simply because you refuse to see it does not make it untrue. Rinoa being Ultimecia is a very possible and probable scenario, and since it answers all of the questions from Final Fantasy VIII, it is most likely probable as well. I have already quoted above what the unanswered questions of the game are- you are merely stalling my arguments here because I am sure you know what the unanswered questions of the game are.

Also, I have explained perfectly the logical and in-game support of R=U, so my statements are actually very true and very valid. I’ll have to ask you here to please not blatantly lie in regards to what I have already written, seeing how you probably deliberately did not read it. All of my previous statements have been proven possible, plausible, and even probable. Therefore, not only is it both plausible and possible that Rinoa is Ultimecia, but it is also greatly probable. Now, let’s move on to the rest of your comments, good sir.

Criticising my personality does not help your argument, you know. My mind is far from closed (again, must I remind you that I used to be like you, and then changed my mind?), and you are only weakening your stance by continually bringing up my "unbending" personality.

Seeing how you were the one who began patronizing and insulting me with veiled statements, I find it funny that you are now offended that I am criticizing your personality. I am only judging you based on what you have written. Based on what you have written, you have proven yourself to be hypocritical and close-minded. If you want to argue some more about whether you are or are not those things, then I will be happy to address these points with you in your next response. My stance is not being weakened at all by stating that you are unbending, lol . In fact, it is only being strengthened because I have continuously proven you to be unbending and close-minded. It is irrelevant if you at one point argued that R=U is plausible because since then something has obviously happened in your life which has caused you to become unbending and close-minded.

She may have gotten a glimpse eh? That really is rock solid, isn't it? You don't think it's possible that Rinoa was simply talking about her powers eventually reaching Ultimecia (something she literally states in the Ragnarok at one point) and her immediate fear of being rejected as a sorceress? Saying that she glimpsed into the future and saw herself becoming Ultimecia is quite farfetched.

Wow, you really like using the interjection ‘eh’? Weren’t you just complaining about patronization and character insults? In regards to your above quote, I was being purely speculative, something which I have done rarely in this entire argument. Rinoa may have been talking about her powers reaching Ultimecia because she someone knew that she would eventually become Ultimecia. Like I said, that point was something I was speculating on because it just so happened to come up, but it brings up an interesting option. Rinoa’s sorcery powers may in fact be the same as the powers that Ultimecia has, which links Rinoa directly to Ultimecia, even if it is proven false that both are the same person.

False logic, eh? Yeah, sorry, I forgot that if anyone had first hand knowledge about what Square would and would not put into the Ultimania Guide, it's you. :rolleyes2 Sorry, but the logic you used to explain away the lack of R=U in the Ultimania was simply that Square obviously didn't want to reveal it all there and rather let us discuss it. What exactly is that based on? First hand knowledge on Square?

Yes, false logic. You use it a lot and you seem to think that it is actually valid. Once again you use the interjection ‘eh.’ You must really like this word, lol . If Rinoa being Ultimecia was intended as a subtle element in the game, then Square would not reveal it in the Ultimania guide, so your argument here is unfounded. Just because Square did not mention anything about R=U does not mean that the theory is false. The Ultimania also did not answer many of the questions left by Final Fantasy VIII. The R=U theory is not based off that guide. It is based off of logical and in-game support which has been proven to be both plausible and possible.

Sorry, but if it's a choice between looking at what Square directly tell us and what you think they purposefully avoided telling us, I'll go with Square any day.

Nice try in the end, there, by the way. I'll refrain, yet again though.

It’s all right, you don’t have to apologize to me anymore. We’re not talking about a company here, we’re talking about the game. It is getting quite frustrating that you keep referencing off-topic points here instead of addressing R=U more specifically.

Once again you fail to answer to my posts by writing a false excuse that I am trying to ‘flame-bait’ you. This is absolutely false and it is a poor tactic that you are resorting to. I would appreciate in the future if you responded to all my arguments, just as I have done with yours (despite some of your arguments being patronizing garbage in my eyes.)

Oh really? Well, sorry to say this, but you're a statistical freak, because of all the hundreds of people I've spoken to over the years, none have claimed that they thought it was obvious from the game. I guess Square really wanted to make it that subtle, huh?

Wow, you completely degrade to outright name calling now. “Freak”? You were the one who asked the question and just because you did not like the answer you resort to name-calling? I thought we were having an intelligent debate here, good sir. If Square did intend to make Rinoa be Ultimecia, then yes, they did make it ‘that’ subtle on purpose. You’ve spoken to hundreds of people who have finished the game? Well good for you if you have really done that but it does not change my answer nor does it change anything about Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Probably true.



Answered all of this earlier.

You answered none of my in-game evidence, nor did you contradict any of my logic. I hope in your next response that you actually answer my quote that you just skipped over once again. As it stands now, my logic and in-game evidence holds even greater that Rinoa is Ultimecia, so I await any evidence or logic you have which will actually contradict this.

Answered all earlier on. Oh, and thank you for being so gracious as to use words of "medium-level difficulty" when explaining me things. You know with my terrible skills at dialectical arguments and inept sociological skills at that, it can get quite hard for me to follow you sometimes.

You keep bypassing my arguments with the phrase “answered all earlier.” This is false because you have not accurately answered any of my points earlier, and you once again circumvent them by continuing to avoid them. I am glad that you admit that it is difficult for you to follow me- if you would like I can alter my vocabulary use to an even lower level of difficulty.

Ouch. Nice one! I guess we can add an inability to grasp time manipulation to the list of my countless flaws (how on earth I managed to write that FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression I honestly don't know...).

I’m going to be frank with you: the FAQ you are referring to is a joke to me. Not only does it suffer from all your flaws of hypocrisy and close-mindedness, but it refuses to acknowledge basic in-game evidence and logical conclusion. Also, your comments on time travel and ‘quantum dynamics’ have shown that you know virtually nothing about time manipulation or physics.

What do you mean, they "may in fact be alternate timelines etc."? They may not be too. They may simply be the same timeline, just different locations on it. Nothing in the game indicates that multiple timelines are in play. It is an unncessary complication on your part based on nothing but your imagination. The fact that instead of actually supporting your claim with in-game events here, you go ahead and post an explanation of it (ignoring the fact that you admitted that my brief summary captured the essence). Is this really because you find me incapable of grasping your idea, which isn't nearly as complex as you think it is, or is it because the idea in fact ISN'T rooted in the game.

I understand that they ‘may not be too.’ That is why I said ‘may be,’ and did not claim anything definitely. It is a necessary idea on my part because the game itself involved the combination of many timelines into one timeline (For example, Squall and Rinoa’s life time line is merged with Ultimecia’s life time line). Secondly, the game itself revolves around the idea of time manipulation, so it is by no means an ‘unnecessary complication’ on my part that I involve the idea of the time concept or of timelines. The entire idea is strongly rooted in the game, and incredibly complex. If you cannot grasp it then that is not something I am about to worry about, lol . The game revolves around time manipulation, and through the in-game evidence and logic that I have already cited, Rinoa can be Ultimecia. In fact, this answers all of the questions left open by Final Fantasy VIII perfectly.

You cannot in any way offer any in-game examples which support your claim that multiple timelines are in action.

Your above quote makes absolutely no sense. Did you even play this game? Rinoa and Squall’s timeline is blended temporarily with Ultimecia’s timeline, otherwise they cannot fight her in person. Also, since Ultimecia reaches into the past and alters the past, she has created an alternate timeline which will eventually result in a different future than the current future that Ultimecia lives in. I have already proven this through the argument of the time-traveling son, but you have ignored it because you have no defense for it. Therefore, Rinoa=Ultimecia only grows stronger and more probable.

Nah, I can't understand a word you're saying. And you're right, my FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression are obvious evidence of my inability to understand simple theories on time manipulation such as this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it for me though, I appreciate the effort.

Well if you cannot understand a word I am saying then why do you continue arguing? I can understand all of your words perfectly, and I have a very easy time disproving them. I’m also glad that you admit the errors of your FAQ- it is not all incorrect, but if you modified it slightly to be more logical, then you would see the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia.

Nice of you to state that you think the FAQ is full of flaws without actually specifying any. I'll take it all the other's who read the FAQ and found no flaws were merely not as clever as you.

Wow, a lot of compliments from you. Thanks. Others who read the FAQ probably thought you were joking, so they didn’t really think it necessary to respond to you. Also, it takes a certain effort to actually type out an e-mail and all that specifying all the errors in your FAQ, so you can see that many people would probably not waste any time doing that, especially when we are talking about an FAQ which many people consider to be a joke. The point is, that I have already pointed out the flaws of the FAQ through arguing with you in this post and in past posts, so if you have any other issues you want me to address, please list them here and I will respond to you.

Again, there is in no way "huge amounts". You mentioned no more than around 5 examples as support, and I have clearly demonstrated the flaws in them all.

Actually, all the ‘flaws’ you think you demonstrated in my arguments were actually disproved by me as illogical and completely false. There are also much more than 5 examples of support for R=U in the previous posts. There are probably over 20 in-game examples and logical conclusions which prove the plausibility and possibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia. I will not bother to list them here once again because I have already talked about them a lot before and you have admitted to ignoring them. Besides, I’ve already spent about an hour and half on this post, so I’d like to post it finally and await for your response.

R=U doesn't make the timeline more complex, it makes it less complex, by removing any intermediate links between Rinoa and Ultimecia. The compexity you speak of is only a result of the fact that you use overly complex, unfounded ideas such as alternate timelines to explain things, when everything can be explained in a much simpler way which doesn't assume such things as alternate timelines. Read my FAQ for more.

The timeline is what it is. If R=U is true, the events of the game are still going to be the same as they are now. R=U is extremely complex because the entire game plot is extremely complex when the time manipulation element is considered. You keep referring to your FAQ which I am already familiar. Alternate timelines are a fact of the game as I have already proven, so it is not something that I am resorting to out of the blue. Since you ignored my arguments on that matter, including the argument about the time-traveling son who convinces his father not to conceive him, you have proven that you have no defense for these arguments and are merely arguing for the sake of preserving your dying beliefs. Alternate timelines are a fact of the game, and they do not need to be assumed.

I will not lend anymore credence to your false FAQ- if you have anything from it that you want to me to address then post it here and I will disprove it. We are discussing R=U, not some FAQ that you wrote for fun.

Just "a bit"? You are saying that "somehow", through some inexplicable mechanism not shown to exist in the game at all, Rinoa projects her "essence" into new sorceresses until she reaches Ultimecia. That's not at all in the game. It's merely a figment of your imagination.

I’ve already told you that this particular argument of mine is something I was speculating, and is certainly not the main defense of the R=U theory. Also, it is most definitely supported by the game when you consider the idea of Ellone ‘junctioning’ people onto others and sorceresses passing on their powers to other sorceresses. The only thing which is a figment of someone’s imagination here is your concept of the game, which has been proven false and illogical time after time after time, lol .

Guide me into the light? Mmm, very good one. I almost fell for that one, I have to admit.

I have already proven your arguments wrong, so therefore you are ‘in the wrong’ if you continue to stick by them. If you do not want to be ‘guided to the light,’ then that is totally your decision and no one can force you to do anything.

Using a word like "malarkey" doesn't excuse you from actually demonstrating in what way my explanation was gibberish.

Besides the fact that you had to resort to the dictionary to see what malarkey means, where do you get the idea that because I used a certain word, it excuses me of demonstrating your illogical arguments? I have already demonstrated how inept you are sociology and dialectical debate by disproving your theories on R=U, so if you want to see why they are ‘gibberish’ simply reread my above writings or my previous posts. Also, I am not the only one who chooses to use idiosyncratic words here. You repeatedly use the word ‘quagmire’ when there are much better substitutes to express your idea of a ‘logical problem.’

It was neither. I have repeatedly explained myself in this regard, and your inability to understand it is frankly, not my problem. Your repeated statements that I am being an idiot here, without actually looking at my argument at all only makes you appear the foolish one here.

Oh, so now you say that hypocrisy is neither fundamental to logic nor neither essential to logic? This is pure backpedaling after I have shown you to contradict yourself. Not only do you contradict yourself in this manner, but you also contradict yourself when you spoke in regards to Rinoa not being Ultimecia. I never called you an idiot, and I don’t really appreciate being called a fool. Just because I have proven you incorrect and hypocritical, doesn’t mean that you should immediately resort to name-calling like you resorted above by calling me ‘foolish’ and before when you called me a ‘freak.’ Very intelligent and interesting of you, if I might add, lol .

I agree, actually. You are far more 'die-hard' than I was. At least I was able to change my mind. Somehow I can't see you doing the same.

Well, like I said before, once people acquire a taste for logic and rationale, they have a hard time of letting such principles go. I am one of those people and I will not let logic or rationale go in favor of a delusion about the facts in a game which hardly warrants anything not directly stated in the game as being classified as ‘fact.’ That is why I never stated that it was fact that Rinoa was Ultimecia, nor did I state I was attempting to prove such a thing.

You did say your post was "full of the same hints", so you must excuse me.

Yes, my posts were full of hints. They were full of other hints and logical conclusions which have much more weight on the R=U theory than the superficial 9 points that you brought up.

Yet without those 9 points on your side, your claim that there is a "plethora" of support for R=U seems rather ludicrous, considering you have cited at best 5 in-game examples or so, all of which are either flawed, based on something flawed, or have much more probable alternate explanations.

Actually I have cited much more than 5 in-game examples, and none of them are flawed. All of your attempts to disprove these examples have been crushed by myself, so I do not know why you keep insisting that my arguments have been proven flawed (perhaps to save face?). In combination with the logical conclusions from the game which build off the in-game evidence, the plausibility and possibility of R=U is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This doesn’t mean that the theory itself has been proven as fact, however.

R=U explains the game’s unanswered questions perfectly. In combination with the possibility and plausibility of this theory, we can see that it is definitely incorrect to discard such a theory, especially when discussing a game called Final Fantasy, lol .

Actually, you said your post was "full of them", and in fact only one out of nine was mentioned.

Actually, 3 out 9 were mentioned, as I stated previously. Perhaps you missed them because you admitted to skipping over my posts, but the three that I mentioned were these:
-Rinoas allusing to wanting time to stand still on the Ragnarok.
-Ultimecia having Griever.
-Ultimecias words during the final battle.

Along with these, I also listed a myriad of other in-game evidence, as well as logical evidence for R=U. Please don’t ignore the indisputable; it’s not nice! lol

Blah blah, this has been said a million times before, and my response is the same (I'm really sick of typing right now, you see).

Wow, you completely lose yourself here. You once again fail to address my valid points and you actually believe that “Blah, blah, blah” will assist your argument here. Oh well, be that as it may, I must continue responding to your post as you wrote it.

See my edited last post for why exactly time-dilation is thought to not allow human beings to timetravel.

Incorrect. Time dilation in theory can allow any object of matter to travel, and simply because technology to safe-guard and preserve a human body has not been developed yet does not mean that it is impossible for the theory to equal human time travel. Besides, we are talking about Final Fantasy, not out universe, so why are you going completely off-topic here? You assume incorrectly that the Final Fantasy universe is governed by the same principles as our universe, something which is an entirely different argument.

This is funny. I actually made a mistake when I said that theory of relativity discusses only travel to the future, and if you read over my edited post, you'll see I've apologised for that, and altered my point as such. Yet here, you say you are "well aware" of something I said which was a mistake? Time-dilation DOES talk about travel to the past, actually. Needless to say, your knowledge on time-travelling in modern physics sounds a bit suspect now, don't you think?

Time dilation does offer the plausibility for time travel in both directions but I was referring to the theory of relativity which only theorizes forward movement in time. You have proved yourself incompetent in basic ideas of physics, especially when you related quantum dynamics and quantum theory to time travel (I will address this a bit further down in the post). Editing your previous post and apologizing does no good because the mistake has already been made, and you have admitted to so many mistakes already that if taken together, those faults alone would disprove your entire stance without any work on my part at all.

Impossible for any object with mass that is (see my edited post).

Incorrect. Time travel theory allows for any object to achieve movement in time, but this is only theory and it has not been proven. Why do you blatantly state some concepts as being false when they have already been acknowledged by theoretical physics?

Quantum theory and quantum dynamics being two different things? Right.....

Quantum theory: deals primarily with atomic and subatomic relations to themselves and the workings of the universe.

Quantum dynamics: a different way of stating ‘quantum mechanics’ which is in regards to specific behavior and structure of atomic and subatomic particles.

As you can see, the two are related, but they are not the same thing. Remember when you claimed that ‘possible’ and ‘plausible’ are the same thing? This is the principle. Plausible and possible are related, but they are not the same thing. The same goes for quantum dynamics and quantum theory.

Anyway though, this is irrelevant to the R=U debate, and I was foolish to bring it up at all.

Exactly, but I have nevertheless addressed it, unlike you when you skipped over a good deal of my previous posts and writings.

I didn't introduce that (I'm really starting to doubt if you have ever read my FAQ...), it was falsehead who did so. I brought that up then, because you stated that you thought it was "good in theory". It stands to reason then that you also approved of her use of quantum dynamics/theory (the difference is, I doubt, no more than semantical).

But again, this is irrelevant to R=U, and I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Yes, you did introduce the question of quantum dynamics into your posts, specifically in post # 66. This was the first time in our argument that the words ‘quantum dynamics’ were introduced, so you are either lying or ignorant when you say that you yourself did not introduce the idea to these arguments. Also, you used selectivity in regards to falsehead’s plot analysis: at one point you state her ideas are full of flaws, but then you have no problem with introducing her argument of quantum dynamics and claiming it to be valid.

There. I'm done. This is my last post here. I know I posed several questions for you, but unless you make a 180 turn all of a sudden, it is obvious that nothing will change. I have wasted far too much time on this anyway, and I'm sick of having to debate with someone who spares no opportunity to belittle me. I guess you won't mind though, considering my inept understanding of sociology, my inability to comprehend logic, my hypocrisy, my inability to grasp modern physics and all the other flaws in my character.

You have not disproved any of my arguments- you’ve only served as a means to make such arguments stronger about Rinoa being Ultimecia. If you stop now, then that it your decision, so go ahead. It is interesting how you say that I have belittled you when you were to one to call me ‘foolish’ and a ‘freak.’ I only pointed out when you were being hypocritical and close-minded. You have actually admitted to being hypocritical and admitted to passing over my other posts. Your character flaws, if you think you have any, are yours to deal with. The important and relevant part of these arguments have been the R=U theory, which I have only strengthened through my defenses. When we refer to a game such as Final Fantasy, it is much more enjoyable to play and talk about the game when we leave the option open for theories about unexplained questions. But, it is especially exciting when we discuss specific theories, such as R=U or Laguna being Squall’s father, which have logical and in-game support.

You can go ahead and take the last word if you want. If you want to gloat about the victory you will undoubtedly claim, be my guest, as I probably won't even bother reading your response. I stand firm in my place though, and maintain that R=U is in no way a plausible theory, and I know from experience that the only ones who were not convinced by the FAQ I co-wrote are people who won't change their mind ever. Your comparison of this argument to the existence of God and the fact that your signature calls FF8 a "religion" only serve to confirm these notions.

But as I said, please do take the time to gloat. I have school-work to do, and have no desire to waste any more hours in this thread.

Sir B.

You misinterpret what my signature means. You’ve heard of people who refer to things through the concept of ‘religion,’ even when it doesn’t have anything to do with religion, haven’t you? I simply like Final Fantasy VIII a lot, so I have chosen an amusing way to express this.

Also, your FAQ has been proven false and illogical in the grand scheme of R=U. You have good points but you have chosen to prove something as fact when it cannot be proven as fact. That is why I always maintained that Rinoa being Ultimecia is not fact, nor was I out to prove it as fact. Just because you haven’t heard from some people who disagree with your FAQ doesn’t mean that everyone who reads it agrees with it.


You don’t have to read my response: this goes far beyond an argument between you and me. I am in Spring Break, so I have time to polish my dialectical skills and theories about R=U. This goes for the championing of the R=U theory, and I want every person who reads this and all other posts to know why it is a logically possible and plausible for Rinoa to be Ultimecia.

-LYCHON

[Zeromus_X]

Yeah, too bad it still isn't.

Anyway, I wonder if she really has a real name...or if her name is Ultimecia anyway. Or if like a poster awhile back said, she took that name out of defiance, or something. Well, that's why FFVIII is so interesting anyway.

[Lychon]

Yeah, too bad it still isn't.

Anyway, I wonder if she really has a real name...or if her name is Ultimecia anyway. Or if like a poster awhile back said, she took that name out of defiance, or something. Well, that's why FFVIII is so interesting anyway.

I never said that R=U was fact, as I have stated plenty of times above. But the idea has both been proven logically possible and plausible.

So therefore, Ultimecia's real name may very well be Rinoa Heartilly.

-LYCHON

[Fantasy Fan]

Edea 2

[Jimmy Dark Aeons Slayer]

Now in my humble opinion i believe that Rinoa cannot be Ultimecia due to the fact that Laguna tells you that Ultimecia lives so far in the future that none of them could still be alive.

My theory is that Ultimecia is a descendent from Rinoa,actually i believe that Rinoa and Squall are the great-great-great grandparents of Ultimecia, and that´s why she´s a sorceress!!!!

As to her first name it would be a pretty common name, and she changed it after rising to power...just like so many warlords!!!

Not a bad theory if i might had.