Originally posted by BloodRainWe don't know either way and it is speculation since we don't see anything.
And I'm asking which part you can't work around.That's like discrediting every witness in court just because the jury weren't actually present at the crime. If there are no contradictions or holes in the statement, there is not case to be made against it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, the details are missing.
Are you admitting you don't actually know the details, so will instead just say "urm.. no details?" over and over? C'mon, quit hiding.
Originally posted by BloodRainWe don't see it so we don't know what all the details are. Lacks context.
If ya can't note any issues or what we're lacking there to draw a conclusion, there is no reason for it to not stand.Are you admitting you don't actually know the details, so will instead just say "urm.. no details?" over and over? C'mon, quit hiding.
Originally posted by BloodRainIt is minus the context same with the Sentry statement from Peter Parker.
When a character whiteness states something happened, and there is no contradictions, its a feat.So when I ask for the details, you'll just cower and say you don't need em or something. Meaning you're reaching.
You are biased.