Is Cid cheating on Edea?

[Serapy]

And so he is a 'Tegginak.'

And so you've lost the flow of the joke.

My previous statement didn't cause any loss, and therefore, I don't see how this kind of outcome supports your claim. After all, I've only spelt 'Kanigget' backwards.

Adel had a knight? It seems that he/she failed at protecting Adel, then. Or perhaps, she didn't have a knight the whole time.

No, Seifer doesn't count.

Adel not having a Knight is considered why she went insane and corrupted so badly, yes.

So, according to your logic, Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight with her?

And your point being? I've never once said that they are different persons.

No, just that 'Matron' is her real name and 'Edea' isn't.

How should we feel in this instance? Come on, we can't just ignore feelings and focus on facts instead. That's utterly impossible, especially in Squall's case.

Regardless of how bad the situation is.

Yes, Squall will be there by her side even if the whole world is against her. No Squall by Ultimecia's side.
R!=U.

Cid was willing to take 'Edea' down. If Cid was Squall, I doubt he would have done the same thing. If the Wall of Destiny told Squall to kill Rinoa, I doubt he would do it either.

Please justify that that wasn't a personal attack. You're the one who called me undefined names- such names that are replaced with actual swearing words to escape the forum's rules.

'Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's just a FF' is the very reason your theories generally fail. Because they fail to account for variables they should because you don't think they are important, 'because it's just a FF'

Wait, one tiny statement can become a theory?

We are arguing about VIII, not about ourselves. You have just proved how illogical your statement really is.

No, because my statement has perfect relevance. It is a quote meaning that 'Your mindset has kept you from succeeding'. Yoda, anyone?

Arguments do not equal to actual persons. Most of all, arguments do not entirely reflect a person. So, calling names is completely irrelevant.
However, if my argument was based on ourselves, then that's a different story.

You base your knowledge on making an argument. So, how arguments and personalities/attitudes are connected is way beyond me.

My agruement is based on VIII, and your response included a criticism of my English which was completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Knowing that it's impossible to be correct at all the time, so how is getting called names if I become wrong is way beyond me. And, I cannot think of a reason how is that not illogical!

You calling me names and criticising my English as a result of you being annoyed by my responses, which is most likely to be the culprit.

Because Squall is the main character. If he keeps the same due to destiny, that would be boring.

But he's the one changing, not Rinoa. So how is HE less affected?

Destiny smashed him at the end. Fortunately, he's survived.

Of course, destiny can't just make them marry each other and have Cid act like 'What's happening!?'

So, in short, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is a non starter, since their being married due to 'destiny' is no different than their being married due to love, since destiny will make them love each other.

Them meeting each other was the turning point and that was it.

No, I'm talking about her own spells. So, how are her spells not powerful? For example, her manifiesting ability.

Sure, these aren't powerful in terms of destiny, but ...

Manifesting ability? Possessing people with JME, you mean?

Pulling something out of some egg.

Some, but not all. Also, :rolleyes2:rolleyes2.

Interpersonal relationships are ESPECIALLY the sort of thing we can only properly understand by comparing them to real world examples.

We can relate to things such as personalities, relationships, clothes etc. We don't easily relate to things that don't exist in reality. Those things that don't exist in reality are more difficult to analyse, especially when not being told in dialogues.

No. They call her Matron simply because of thier memories in the past. It doesn't make Matron any different than Edea. I'm calling her Matron because I'm sided with the party.

... Even though it is completely and utterly unnecessary, and the very game itself calls her Edea?

Then why did the game make Squall and Co. call her Matron? These are the good guys, and I'm siding with them!

Wait a second, you said that Matron is a nurse title. That's funny, then. Squall and the party calling her NURSE NURSE... N.U.R.S.E NURRRRRRRRSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's ok, it wasn't your fault!

Well, that doesn't work like that for me. Whenever I think of something in my head, I draw a visual image.

How does that change anything? So do I. But I can hold Edea at the orphanage, Edea possessed, and Edea at the end all with just one name.

I don't think it changes anything. On some note, though, can you teach me how to make my 'Edea' variable declare a visual image of black clothes, long hair and kind words? I would appreciate it.

I didn't start this, you know. I called her Matron and look at what happened after that.

Yes, I said her name was Edea, and you went on a crusade to justify a 'difference' of some sort between Edea and 'Matron'

You said that it was Edea, not Matron. So, what was I supposed to do then? After I replied back, then you reply back and the cycle keeps repeating.

If you were actually criticising my agruements, you would be saying things like 'stupid agruement', 'bad agruement', or something like that. Calling the responsible person names directly, who made certain arguements, have nothing to do with 'criticising my arguements.' In other words,



Black line is fine.
Blue line is not cool. Meh, this is the Internet after all.

If I attack your argument and then make an attack against you personally, I am still attacking your argument. No fallacy has been committed.

Calling me names to attack my arguments... Indirectly, yes. Directly, no.

Interestingly, however, your diagram DOES commit a fallacy, again that of the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., in which you have failed to note your statements which prompted my comments towards you- based originally on your really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning, hilariously enough- and reducing all that I have said, the vast majority of my responses to you, in direct criticism of your theories, not you, to simply 'bad'.

Better? The only difference is that I didn't call you names or criticise your English. That's why I didn't add a line from my lolbox to your lolbox.

As for the 'bad' word, your responses to my statements were negative. The 'bad' word has a negative effect too. The diagram would be huge if I added actual words.

I have been more than patient, more than eloquent in explaining why your theories are baseless. It is only when you have said such things as 'Parsimony and logic are bad' and have really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ned my responses or otherwise acted without intellectual honesty that such invectives have been directed your way, and not undeservedly, in my opinion.

What can I say?

Because I said so.

Concession duly accepted for neither explaining this incident or why it would apply were the two not married.

I meant that if they have never met before, the answer would be obvious, wouldn't it?

You have never experienced them within the game. So, please elaborate. As you recall, time travel in VIII is not exactly the same as the one time travel theory in real life.

Paradox is paradox even in a 'fixed' temporal concept.

But the point still remains, we have never experienced them within the game. How can we know for sure?

Yet you quoted all of my text in the first place.

I know I did. I did it for the Lulz!

This thread is warranted enough to be not serious?