Shadowman's Future?

[Drift]

So, Elya's records = Timeline A.

Rokkie's story = Timeline B.

So Elya's records don't take place in Rokkie's story which is the right one?
And if Elya's records aren't real then they aren't relevant because they record a different timeline.

[ManofTheAtom]

I already proved, more than once, that information from the 41st Century about events in the 20th Century was not wrong.

Computers have to be programmed by people and people make mistakes and also lie so the information stored in the computer's memory could be wrong due to human error or lying.

Yet every instance of information from the 41st Century about events in the 20th was right.

Weird, ain't it?

Not every butterfly kills the dinosaurs.

No, I'm sure they don't, just like I'm sure stepping on the right butterfly would give way to a temporal dimension where all of these worthless debate could have been settled moths ago had you or someone else come to the above conclusion much faster.

[ManofTheAtom]

So, Elya's records = Timeline A.

Rokkie's story = Timeline B.

So Elya's records don't take place in Rokkie's story which is the right one?
And if Elya's records aren't real then they aren't relevant because they record a different timeline.

That's the gist of it.

[greg]

I already offered it.

Rokland Tate told the story of the Valiant Universe from "Timeline A"...
SOMETHING could happen to make his timeline fade out,
and a new timeline takes its place... without anyone knowing it.

Jack Dominique Boniface DIED in 1999 in the timeline that Erica lived through...
Erica created the Unity conflict AFTER Jack had died.

Erica's database described a history that was ALTERED by the 1992 Valiant characters.

Those same 1992 Valiant characters were returned to their own time...
where everything had changed without their knowledge.
Jack believed he would die in 1999 because he had died in 1999.
Thanks to that knowledge, he took the right steps to prevent it from happening again.

Not every event was affected by Unity...
some happened exactly the same way the second time.
...but not all of them. This time, "Shadowman" died, Jack lived.

A stitch in time saves nine. Jack was only the first of those nine.

I'm gonna help you out since you're still lost.

Elya read records from, as you call it, Timeline A. Jack went back to a Timeline A broken by Unity, that when the Geomancers put together became Timeline B, which is what we saw in Rai #0.

So, Elya's records = Timeline A.

Rokkie's story = Timeline B.

Timeline B does not mention Jack.

It doesn't have to.

In Timeline A (aka Elya's records), Jack died in 99, in Timeline B (aka Rai #0) it was Shadowman, either because of Unity, Jack himself, or the Geomancers.

Timeline A does not exist after Unity.

Timeline B does not mention Jack.

Therefore, Timeline B only requires that a "Shadowman" dies.
You cannot use evidence from Timeline A in Timeline B.

[Drift]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

[ManofTheAtom]

I already offered it.

Rokland Tate told the story of the Valiant Universe from "Timeline A"...
SOMETHING could happen to make his timeline fade out,
and a new timeline takes its place... without anyone knowing it.

Jack Dominique Boniface DIED in 1999 in the timeline that Erica lived through...
Erica created the Unity conflict AFTER Jack had died.

Erica's database described a history that was ALTERED by the 1992 Valiant characters.

Those same 1992 Valiant characters were returned to their own time...
where everything had changed without their knowledge.
Jack believed he would die in 1999 because he had died in 1999.
Thanks to that knowledge, he took the right steps to prevent it from happening again.

Not every event was affected by Unity...
some happened exactly the same way the second time.
...but not all of them. This time, "Shadowman" died, Jack lived.

A stitch in time saves nine. Jack was only the first of those nine.

I'm gonna help you out since you're still lost.

Elya read records from, as you call it, Timeline A. Jack went back to a Timeline A broken by Unity, that when the Geomancers put together became Timeline B, which is what we saw in Rai #0.

So, Elya's records = Timeline A.

Rokkie's story = Timeline B.

Timeline B does not mention Jack.

It doesn't have to.

In Timeline A (aka Elya's records), Jack died in 99, in Timeline B (aka Rai #0) it was Shadowman, either because of Unity, Jack himself, or the Geomancers.

Timeline A does not exist after Unity.

Timeline B does not mention Jack.

Therefore, Timeline B only requires that a "Shadowman" dies.
You cannot use evidence from Timeline A in Timeline B.

Timeline A exist BEFORE Unity. It doesn't become Timeline B until after Unity breaks it and the Geomancers fix it.

It starts out with ONE timeline, Timeline.

Then it reaches a breaking point, Unity. At that point Timeline splits into TWO timelines, Timeline A and Timeline B.

Elya came from the 41st Centruy of Timeline, before it broke. Jack returned to the 20th Century of Timeline after it broke.

All the information Elya had came from before the break, but Jack lived in the timeline after it was broken and fixed.

[Drift]

So her info pertains to a different timeline and thus cannot be used as evidence in a debate about a different timeline.

[greg]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

[ManofTheAtom]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

I told you mutliple times that it's easier to be an *SQUEE* and that I treat others like they do me.

I've been asking these people to get off their butts for years now and open the comics to move the debate forward using facts, but all they've done is pout and say "it's my opinion, and that's all that matter", or say "it's fantasy, if they want the Lone Ranger can save Jack", or post stupid gifs and insults.

Why should I bother to move the argument forward and do their job for them?

I've known for years that the information Elya got came from a timeline different than Rokkie's, but I saw no need to tell them or behave differently than they do.

[ManofTheAtom]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

[greg]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

For all we know, Eternal Warrior helped Jack avoid death.
He's the one who mentioned the changes in his timeline.
He would have no reason to "keep it the same" when he already
knew it was going to be different.

Are we to understand that you now agree there is a VALID STORY that keeps Jack alive after 1999?

[cjv]

...just like Clark Kent is Superman.

Why are you using a fake universe as proof? You just want DC-Lite.

I'm using an example from a comic that exist in the VALIANT Universe as proof.

So you are using a fake comic book from within a fake universe as proof?

Is that sort of like a double negative - they cancel each other out so it is real?


Chris

[Drift]

So you have been making an argument for ages with little backing because the information you have been using as evidence does not pertain to the incidents in question and you didn't tell them you just kept having a go at them when all along you would have admitted it wasn't the correct info if they had called you up but you continued being a *SQUEE* because they did it to you and if they were using wrong info you can do it too?

How is that justification?

[ManofTheAtom]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

For all we know, Eternal Warrior helped Jack avoid death.
He's the one who mentioned the changes in his timeline.
He would have no reason to "keep it the same" when he already
knew it was going to be different.

Are we to understand that you now agree there is a VALID STORY that keeps Jack alive after 1999?

I agree that, FINALLY, a miracle occured and you found concrete evidence to support the idea that such a story could happen.

It only took five years or so.

[Drift]

So why didn't you just admit you were wrong 5 years ago and give them the info?

[ManofTheAtom]

So you have been making an argument for ages with little backing because the information you have been using as evidence does not pertain to the incidents in question and you didn't tell them you just kept having a go at them when all along you would have admitted it wasn't the correct info if they had called you up but you continued being a *SQUEE* because they did it to you and if they were using wrong info you can do it too?

How is that justification?

No, my argument was backed up by evidence.

It's more like I willingly witheld evidence that supported the opposing side's argument.

I told them where to find it, they just didn't want to look for it.

[greg]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

For all we know, Eternal Warrior helped Jack avoid death.
He's the one who mentioned the changes in his timeline.
He would have no reason to "keep it the same" when he already
knew it was going to be different.

Are we to understand that you now agree there is a VALID STORY that keeps Jack alive after 1999?

I agree that, FINALLY, a miracle occured and you found concrete evidence to support the idea that such a story could happen.

It only took five years or so.

HALLELUJAH!!!

[ManofTheAtom]

So why didn't you just admit you were wrong 5 years ago and give them the info?

I wasn't wrong, and Greg already stumbled onto the info himself.

[ManofTheAtom]

So if the info doesn't add up how can you use it as evidence as you have done?

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

For all we know, Eternal Warrior helped Jack avoid death.
He's the one who mentioned the changes in his timeline.
He would have no reason to "keep it the same" when he already
knew it was going to be different.

Are we to understand that you now agree there is a VALID STORY that keeps Jack alive after 1999?

I agree that, FINALLY, a miracle occured and you found concrete evidence to support the idea that such a story could happen.

It only took five years or so.

HALLELUJAH!!!

You were a little slow in the uptake.

[greg]

Is that a question for me or MOTA?

I'm saying that Rai #0 can still be true if the "Shadowman" isn't Jack.

Jack, upon learning about his 1999 death during Unity, can avoid it when his 1999 comes around.

Rai #0 doesn't say that Jack is the "shadowman" who dies.
During Unity, it was Jack who died. After Unity... things changed.
Jack's new information (learned during Unity) made it possible for him to change that future.

Or the Geomancers did it, or it was because of Unity.

For all we know, Eternal Warrior helped Jack avoid death.
He's the one who mentioned the changes in his timeline.
He would have no reason to "keep it the same" when he already
knew it was going to be different.

Are we to understand that you now agree there is a VALID STORY that keeps Jack alive after 1999?

I agree that, FINALLY, a miracle occured and you found concrete evidence to support the idea that such a story could happen.

It only took five years or so.

HALLELUJAH!!!

You were a little slow in the uptake.

Whatever you say.

[ManofTheAtom]

Whatever you say.

You're being an *SQUEE* again.

I'm not the one that needed five years to find what I've been telling you to look for.

[Drift]

but the evidence it was backed up by was wrong.

That is not "withholding evidence" that is outright lying and you getting your back up about it was pointless *SQUEE*.

Someone said you didn't argue for arguments sake in the thread about your custom title but you have been doing so for five years and have just made him and anyone else who stuck up for you look like a *SQUEE*.

[ManofTheAtom]

but the evidence it was backed up by was wrong.

That is not "withholding evidence" that is outright lying and you getting your back up about it was pointless *SQUEE*.

Someone said you didn't argue for arguments sake in the thread about your custom title but you have been doing so for five years and have just made him and anyone else who stuck up for you look like a *SQUEE*.

This is the first time I hear about anyone stucking up for me.

Must have gotten lost in the mockery, insulting gifs, and threads calling me a liar.

As for the evidence, I've been telling you people to read the comics for five years, you're the ones that refused.

[Drift]

but you are a liar so they were right all along. You have no justification for getting *SQUEE* off with it.

[Drift]

As for the evidence, I've been telling you people to read the comics for five years, you're the ones that refused.

I've been collecting valiant for 2 months and have been here less than 1.