You're welcome to present your version. Until then argue in detail or shut up about it because flatly declaring "I disagree with you, that's all there is to it" is about as conversationally productive and behaviourally mature as putting fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".
But I can't hear you! This is text!
To make it short, I have no interest in creating a timeline with so little information. It's asinine. Discussing just one aspect of this grand tapestry seems to cause enough lit fuses for several paragraphs from you. I do not need to see the full salvo, thank you very much.
In other words you arbitrarily wholly disagree with it without even looking at it solely based on the author, and airily pooh-pooh any elaborations derived from available information - while making vague claims of working off an approximate timeline of events of your own (possibly also featuring blackjack and hookers).
Thank you for this frank admission of not even pretending to be arguing in good faith.
And have I mentioned this petty grudge of yours is right tiresome?
That's some woolly and arbitrary assumptions indeed to base an argument on. I have to ask - why are you giving the fictional people only vaguely sketched out in the narrative greater benefit of the doubt than the actual translators...?
I was actually refering to the author, not the teacher in the story.
The relevant lines are on separate pages with no realistic possibility of confusion of order, as might be the case with 'creatively' placed frames and/or speech bubbles on a single page. Trying to argue authorial mix-up here is beyond ridiculous whatever one now might think of the overall quality of their worldbuilding.
Ahem. I do know because it's right there in plain text.
Oh you mean the vague "Yeah I guess its mostly the same even though I dont understand your history well enough"? From a high-school history textbook? Cute.
That's already considerably more concrete scaffolding that you have propping up your increasingly far-fetched premises though. Glass houses, living in, throwing rocks...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hence why I established that the text is not necessarily contradicting my statment at all, but it's okay. You can ignore my arguments, that's your right Mr. Gentleman.
The text only fails to contradict it by way of comically tortuous mental gymnastics and even more arbitrary assumptions.
Whether the solution was on the cusp of being realized or already being realized before the last man died is basically a miniscule difference, but I guess if you want to see it like that, I'll go back to my original assumption. They already found it. Satisfied? No, you never are.
There is a pretty fundamental difference between "already existed at the time" (as you claimed) and "invented sometime later" (as the narrative quite clearly states) actually, irrespective of how soon that "later" was. It's okay, I never expected you would deign to admit to simply being wrong or at least having misphrased the case anyway.
I also write for the benefit of the audience that can be excused for not remembering or never having read in the first place a mini-essay nine pages back.
I sure hope there is no audience for this exchange. My sympathies to those who do read it.
Next time just post the link.
And here I thought you had no interest in it a priori. Decide already.
last edited at Apr 15, 2019 11:24AM
